I live in New York City, in a neighborhood of northern Manhattan called Washington Heights. Within a few blocks of my home is Bennet Park, which has a plaque noting that this was the site of Fort Washington, one of two forts George Washington established to control traffic on the Hudson River.
I live three blocks north of the George Washington Bridge, which is not to be confused with the nearby Washington Bridge. By crossing the former, I can drive to Morristown, NJ, site of one of Washington’s winter headquarters, or to Tappan, NY, which has another “Washington slept here” site. It’s also where a British officer was executed as a spy.
There can be no doubt that George Washington, Father of Our Country, Hero of the Revolution, Liberator, and the New Cincinattus, is alive today and maintains an ongoing presence in our history. If not for George Washington, American freedom and liberty would have been stifled and snuffed out before it could take root and bloom.
Also, George Washington owned slaves.
That Washington owned slaves, along with so many other Founding Fathers, is not a historical secret. That it’s come alongside the larger narratives is, from what I can tell, relatively new. It’s not something I remember explicitly learning in school; even Jefferson’s ownership of slaves was something I only learned of as a young adult. It’s an important part of the larger narrative, in my opinion, to know that the unequal treatment of African-Americans lay in the very foundation, literally, of our country.
This subject came up tangentially more recently when debate over Confederate statues arose. It’s a debate I would like to write about at another time; the short version of the question is: how can we denounce these slaveholders who fought for their freedom, while not denouncing the most venerated slaveholders of our entire nation?
One answer would be that it depends largely on whether you believe the Civil War was fought over slavery, or over “States’ Rights”; it might also hinge on who won: The Founding Fathers won their war, while the Confederates lost theirs. The more complicated answer would have to start with, if all these men were fighting for rights, precisely whose rights, and what rights, were they fighting for?
For George Washington, I read Ron Chernow’s “Washington: A Life”. I’d previously read his biography of Ulysses S. Grant, and I find his writing accessible and well-researched. I’d put off reading about the early days of American history largely due to interest – I read about Nixon and Grant because of the reputations for corruption, and Cleveland and Arthur because of their obscurity and historical fun facts. However, having previously read David McCollough’s “John Adams”, along with some of my supplemental sourcing, I decided it was time to start at the beginning, with our first President, George Washington.
As I mentioned before, I live in New York City, and the city’s Revolutionary history has gotten a bit more light shown on it recently, no doubt in part to hipsters in Brooklyn learning that they were gentrifying the location of a major battle in the war; the Battle of Long Island is now referred to by many as the Battle of Brooklyn. Near my perch in Washington Heights, Fort Washington is literally a block away from my standard jogging route, which also takes me into Fort Tryon Park, where an annual small-scale re-enactment of that battle takes place [[ link to blog post ]] . As I read the chapters on Washington’s war years, I found he fought over ground that was largely familiar to me in a surprising way; I’ve visited clients in Philadelphia, and for a few years worked for a company with an office near Princeton, NJ. I also had a commute for about six months that took me through Morristown, and all along the way, to any of these locations, are places where Washington either fought or camped.
Washington was born to a fairly middle-class Virginia family. While he was very bright, his parents could not afford to send him to college, as they had done with two of his siblings; thus Washington was the first of many Presidents to feel a bit spurned by the educated elites of his day, notably John Adams, his later Vice President. Washington was a tall, strong man, with a commanding presence, and he enjoyed the outdoors, so he learned to survey land, and found service in the colonial militia.
In 1754, young (early twenties) Colonel Washington led a force of colonial militia and Native Americans against a French fort near modern-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The French intended to simply tell the British forces to back off encroaching on their land, but Washington’s forces set an ambush, which led to a battle, which they lost, retreating to a poorly-positioned fort and eventually surrendering. As part of the surrender, Washington signed a treaty in French that stated that the French commander, who had been killed in battle, had actually been assassinated – basically admitting to a war crime. This event is credited with igniting the French and Indian War.
Upon returning home, and some bickering over what rank and command he should have, Washington resigned his commission and returned to civilian life. He later returned to service as a volunteer and burnished his military record. He also married Martha Custis, the young widow of a wealthy plantation owner, and thus entered the American gentry of plantation owners, plantations worked primarily by slave labor.
Washington’s experience as a surveyor, along with his newfound wealth and political connections, positioned him well to enter Virginia society. There is a lot of tragedy and complication to be found in his family life; he and Martha never had children of their own, his stepdaughter died in an epileptic fit, and in his family line the men tended to die relatively young. Washington was very purposeful in life, perhaps because the shadow of death was never far away.
Revolutionary War
As one of the landed gentry, and being active in local politics, Washington was well-positioned to be at the forefront of revolutionary talk leading in to the war. Let’s be clear that the Revolution was not led by the proverbial man-in-the-street, and that when the Founding Fathers referred to themselves as “farmers”, they really meant owners of large working farms and plantations. The revolution was led by professionals and owner-operators of agrarian factories.
Washington was notoriously inscrutable, referred to as “Sphinx-like”, remaining silent and holding his opinion for as long as possible. Thus, when he did speak, people listened. His stature was large for the day, and his presence in any debating chamber would have been hard to miss. He was also extraordinarily good at small-room conversation, the kind of politician who could advance his agenda by talking to the people who would stand up in a room and make proposals, even though he was not good at public speeches himself. Washington was able to get himself appointed as a General in the newly-formed Continental Army, and a few battles later, made commander-in-chief.
The Continental Army was hardly an army at all. Constantly deprived of funds, uniforms were not uniform, ammunition was scarce, and armaments were random. When other European fighting forces came to assist, they were often shocked at the state of the Continental Army, who seemed more armed rabble than organized fighting force. Yet, Washington was a firm disciplinarian, and with the help of a German officer, was able to whip the men into fighting shape.
How does one fight an overlord military power, one armed with the largest navy in the world, as well as one of the crack fighting armies? The general strategy at the time was for an army to occupy cities, which served as hubs for communications and trade. Washington was able to force the British to leave Boston, but he was forced to retreat from New York, never able to reclaim it despite his deepest wishes. Washington was able to outmaneuver the British army, at least long enough for the French Navy and military support to help turn the tide.
The short answer then is: Washington was a general good at maneuvering, and the United States got help from its enemy’s biggest rival for power.
Presidency
The most important aspect of Washington’s Presidency is that it was the first. For the United States, this would be the first time they had a President, the first time there was a chief executive elected by the (male, land-owning) people, the first time anything this person did would be done.
Washington was elected unanimously not once but twice, the only American President to achieve this. While in modern times we would be suspicious of any such outcome, it reflects the historic popularity of Washington. He was ambivalent about being President in the first place and had to be talked into running for his second term. Many politicians were afraid that if he didn’t stay on, the young nation would be destabilized. A full eight years was needed to ensure that the precedents for Constitutional processes were firm.
Many of the Founding Fathers were in Washington’s first administration, and several of them had strong opinions on the Constitution that had only recently been signed. To the horror of some, political parties – then called factions – began to form, broadly between those who preferred a decentralized States-based government such as Jefferson and Madison, and those who preferred a stronger central Federal government, such as Hamilton and Adams. Washington tried to stay above the fray but generally preferred a strong central government, in part due to his wartime frustrations getting Congress to agree on anything.
It’s worth taking an aside to really clarify the distinction here. The first version of the United States, under the Articles of Confederation, had no executive branch. Congress was in charge, and Congress was made up of representation from the several states. While it would be inevitable that strong personalities and politically powerful states would come to dominate, there was no executive to set an agenda and drive debate and policy. Contrast that with the second version of the United States, formed by the Constitution, that set out a distinct executive branch, albeit one with limits. That dynamic tension has been part of our government since then, and Washington would be merely the first among many Presidents to push against those limits.
In Washington’s first term he governed very cautiously; the first bill that he vetoed, he simply said he didn’t like the wording, and would gladly sign a re-worded bill, and he did. He would consult regularly with his cabinet and asked for their opinions in writing before making a decision. His most controversial measure was supporting Hamilton’s plan to federalize war debts, i.e. have the Federal government assume the debts of various states and then pay it off, ensuring a good credit rating for the young nation. He led (for a while, anyway) forces against the Whiskey Rebellion, wherein farmers in the western regions refused to pay a tax levied to pay those wartime debts.
Towards the end of his first term and well into his second, Washington took some drubbings in the press. Jefferson and Madison supported several newspaper outlets that published opinion pieces critical of his administration. He was personally popular, though his policies were not always so. All this while Washington lived briefly in New York, and then in Philadelphia, as the nation’s new capital bearing his name was built.
Notably, the United States’ relationships with Britain and France were difficult. With the former, several years of treaty negotiations brought back a peace treaty that was generally more favorable to the British. With the latter, the French Revolution brought about not only a change in relations, but another topic on which American politicians could disagree.
For Jeffersonians, the decapitations of the French king and other nobles were an acceptable price to pay for liberty, and any stories about the indiscriminate killing in the Reign of Terror were exaggeration and propaganda. For the budding Federalists, the prospect of a mob run rampant, along with the toppling of an otherwise-legitimate government, meant that any new relationships with France were to be carefully considered. From their perspective, a stable and friendly Britain was a far better partner than a murder-happy Revolutionary France.
Washington sought neutrality as war between France and Britain began. A French minister, “Citizen Genet” whipped up anti-Federalist fervor and otherwise behaved in a manner not conducive to good relations. Washington was fairly even-handed in his handling of relations with the French, but via Genet subject to constant criticism by Jefferson and the anti-Federalists. Eventually, Washington asked that Genet be recalled; ironically, when Genet was out of Revolutionary favor in France, he prevailed upon Washington for asylum in the United States, which Washington granted.
Domestically, the issue of slavery did not fail to come up. There were petitions early on to end slavery; in response, Georgia and South Carolina threatened, essentially, to secede if these were passed. Several anti-Black measures were signed into law, most notably the Fugitive Slave Act, and both Kentucky and Tennessee were admitted as slave states when they joined the Union.
On the one hand, Washington would state privately that he would rather have freed his slaves and had them work essentially as sharecroppers for room and board. It’s no excuse that he would say, in practically the same breath, that he didn’t see how to do that.
When he was living in Philadelphia he would bring his slaves with him, but Pennsylvania had a law that any slave in the state for more than six months was automatically freed. Washington would thus devise excuses to rotate his slaves out of Philly and bring them back, hoping they’d never learn why.
The key issues of Washington’s day, following the conclusion of the Revolution, revolved around the size and power of the Federal Government. How big could the military be? What were the limits on the government’s ability to tax? Should there be a central bank, and how would all the debt taken on for the war be paid?
As with so many other periods of American history, there are many parallels with today. The difference is, today we often talk about the Founding Fathers and their intent, as if there were a singular, unified vision for what the country was and always should be. The truth is, there wasn’t such a unified vision, and that’s reflected in three specific political battles Washington fought.
During the war, one of Washington’s chief and recurring complaints was getting Congress to pay the army. He was fortunate in that he had many soldiers who were devoted to the cause, and felt great loyalty to him, but devotion and loyalty only go so far: when soldiers cannot feed their families, they will quit and do whatever they can that will. The challenge was that the individual states would take on debt to pay the army, and there was great squabbling over who was contributing their fair share, whether by sharing the bills, or by where there was fighting, or who had the most money.
Washington’s Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, was tasked with coming up with a plan to address the war debt run up by the states, and basically proposed a national back and the Federal assumption of war debt. This was deeply opposed by some on a couple of specific grounds, generally that doing so would be unfair. First, states that had been badly damaged in the war but had retired their debt would gain no relief for the costs of rebuilding. Second, that people, mostly veterans, who had bought war bonds which dropped steeply in value, would be cheated, as they had sold their nearly worthless bonds to financial speculators, who were betting that the face value of the bonds would eventually be redeemed.
Washington also executed some of the first Federal actions against rebellion. While technically the Shays Rebellion against taxation preceded Washington’s Presidency, it influenced arguments about the size and limits on the Federal government. Thus, when the Whiskey Rebellion, occurred during his first term, Washington was on firmer footing to resolve the dispute, calling on state militias and seeking to negotiate with the protesters.
Lastly, in foreign policy, Washington had to maneuver the nation during one of the most tumultuous times for the Great Powers of the time. The King of France had aided the United States in its Revolution; Revolutionary France treated the United States as just another trading partner of its enemy, subject to interdiction.
The United Kingdom that Washington had fought against was one of the United States’ strongest trading partners, and shared a common language and culture with the young nation. However, the British also treated the United States as a partner of its enemy. Within the country, there were political factions who favored France or favored the British, and as Washington balanced these factions against the good of the nation as a whole, these positions would be among many that formed the first political parties.
Washington’s participation in political life did not end with his Presidency. While he yearned to return to private life and put his plantations in order, as well as to enjoy time with his wife and family, he was famous and sought out by visitors both in the Americas and from Europe.
During the Adams administration, Washington was courted to lead a potential army in the event of real war during the Quasi-War with France (during a war with Britain, France was interdicting American shipping). He squabbled with Adams over his choices for general staff, in particular the always-controversial Hamilton.
Washington was also sought out by various political leaders, as much for a blessing as advice. All through his postwar service, both before and after his Presidency, his estate at Mount Vernon saw a steady flock of admirers hoping to meet and dine with the great man.
It is from the journals and letters of foreign visitors that Chernow found the most descriptions of slave life on Washington’s plantations; Americans generally left that out or glossed over the topic entirely. As myopic as a term “kind master” of slaves is, Washington was regarded in his time as such a one. He steadfastly refused to participate in slave trade by selling them, which led to having a growing population of dependent enslaved people – too old or too young to labor, but still requiring food and shelter, however meagerly apportioned.
Washington did free his slaves upon his death, but while this might seem an exonerating headline, there were some details and complications to the matter. First, most of the slaves on the plantation were not his to free; they were “dower slaves”, or slaves owned through his marriage to Martha, which meant they were not legally his possessions. He could not set them free.
Some of Washington’s slaves were married to dower slaves, which meant that on his death some slaves were freed but had reason to stay. Lastly, his will also stipulated that the dower slaves be freed on Martha’s death, and towards the end of her life she was afraid for her own life, knowing that her slaves knew freedom was only her final moment away. Rather than wait, she freed them in 1801, a little more than a year after her husband’s death.
Second, prior to this period, while Washington’s letters often indicated a desire to be rid of slavery, he more or less threw his hands in the air when it came to actually doing it. Major portions of the economy were built on the backs of slave labor, and even this early in American history, southern states threatened to secede if slavery was abolished.
More to the point, Washington pursued escaped slaves before entering political life as well as during his Presidency, at one point abusing the power of his office by tasking a customs agent in New Hampshire with kidnapping an escaped slave, Ona Judge. The agent ultimately did not turn her over after hearing her story, and she remained free even after, years later, Martha Washington asked a family member in the area to pursue Judge.
Washington died ignominiously. One winter, he went out for a ride on his property, got caught out in sleet and snow, and when he came home, he sat down straight to dinner with his guests, without changing out of wet clothes. He went out again the next day despite having a sore throat, and shortly thereafter developed a throat infection. After enduring 18th Century medical treatments (Chernow goes into detail about how many bleedings were prescribed and estimates the blood loss), Washington succumbed to illness.
The whole nation mourned.
Could Washington be elected today? Let’s be very clear that the circumstances of his election were unique. First, the country had not had a President before, ever. Second, he was not only a war hero, but had led the nation in its fight for freedom. We are not likely to have those circumstances ever again, not without a lot of other things going very, very wrong.
Washington was an adroit politician, an ardent background influencer. He was not a campaigner, but in small settings, knew who to talk to and what to say to various decision-makers in order to get what he wanted. And, despite protestations to the contrary, Washington did want the Presidency, possibly as much out of a sense of duty as his own ego. Despite the toll exacted by his wartime command and later the Presidency, Washington did, in the end, desire and seek out these roles.
What muddies the water is that Washington did not operate in a two-party system. While there were different factions in the early days of Congress, parties came later. A modern Washington would likely be an independent. He would have to be someone of such great standing in the nation that both parties would seek him out, perhaps for his blessing and then, perhaps after some polling, to actually stand as a candidate. Washington’s reputation as an inscrutable Sphinx gave him great political clout; he could put off taking action until he absolutely had to. So, yes Washington could be elected today, but only in a world where transcending party politics was valued, and in a world where he could allow many disparately-aligned voters to project their values onto him.