Presidency of George Washington

Presidency of George Washington
(30 April 1789 – 4 March 1797)

The United States Federal government went into operation in the spring of 1789, New York City being the first capital. Washington had, of course, been the unanimous choice of the Electoral College for the presidency, while John Adams of Massachusetts became the first Vice-President. Convinced that his abilities would not be equal to the task ahead of him, and declaring that he felt like a criminal going to his execution, Washington left Mount Vernon to assume his new duties with the greatest reluctance.

In his inaugural address he gave expression in memorable words to the immense importance of the responsibility entrusted to him. In the address he declared that “the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally stacked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of American people.”

Organization of Administration during the Presidency of George Washington

The first few months were necessarily devoted to the enormous task of getting the new government organized. Congress, under the leadership of James Madison, quickly voted tariff duties which provided enough revenue for immediate expense.

Establishment of Cabinet

Washington himself had to create an administration and select all its officials before any important measures could be executed. Being himself an excellent administrator, he insisted on equally high standards among his subordinates. He made every effort to give appointments only to men of ability, good reputation, and complete integrity.

In 18th century Europe honesty among public officials was a somewhat rare phenomenon, and the standard set by the new American government was undoubtedly far higher than that of any other country in the world except Prussia. Probably it was higher under Washington than it has ever been since.

The only criticism that may be made of Washington’s method is that he appointed only men who had supported the Constitution. But in view of the bitter controversy over this document and the precarious margin of its adoption, such a policy seemed necessary for the success of the new government; even if it meant that the Federal bureaucracy represented only one side of public opinion.

The two chief positions in the administration, those of Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury, were given to Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The first Cabinet also included General Henry Knox of Massachusetts as Secretary of War and Edmund Randolph of Virginia as Attorney General.

A Cabinet had not been prescribed by the Constitution. But Washington always preferred to seek advice before making any decision. Thus from the beginning the Cabinet became part of the machinery of government.

The Washington Cabinet
Office	Name	Term
President	George Washington	1789–1797
Vice President	John Adams	1789–1797
Secretary of State	John Jay	1789–1790
	Thomas Jefferson	1790–1793
	Edmund Randolph	1794–1795
	Timothy Pickering	1795–1797
Secretary of the Treasury	Alexander Hamilton	1789–1795
	Oliver Wolcott Jr.	1795–1797
Secretary of War	Henry Knox	1789–1794
	Timothy Pickering	1795
	James McHenry	1796–1797
Attorney General	Edmund Randolph	1789–1794
	William Bradford	1794–1795
	Charles Lee	1795–1797

Establishment of Judiciary

The Constitution had also left vague the organization of the judiciary. But the gap was filled by the enactment in 1789 of a Judiciary Act, which declared that the Supreme Court was to have six members and also set up thirteen district and three circuit courts. John Jay of New York was Washington’s choice for Chief Justice.

The Judiciary Act made it plain that Federal judges were to interpret the Constitution as the supreme law, and as early as 1791 and 1792 circuit courts exercised this function by invalidating state laws and also an act* of the Federal Congress.

Thus the doctrine of judicial review, which had already been stated by Hamilton in one of the Federalist Papers, quickly became a part of the Federal system of government. However its importance was not recognized until it was asserted by the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

*In the first Hayburn case, in 1792, a circuit court refused to execute an act of Congress requiring the courts to pass on pension claims, on the ground that such a duty was beyond the scope of judiciary.

Financial Reforms during the Presidency of George Washington

The main task confronting the new government was to work out a program for dealing with financial and economic problems. This was the responsibility of Alexander Hamilton, whose recommendations were generally accepted by Washington and who quickly became a dominating figure in administration.

In lucidity of mind and administrative ability no American statesman has surpassed him. On the other hand, he thought in traditional European terms, and was totally lacking in sympathy with the emergent spirit of democracy that distinguished American society. The main purpose of his financial policies was, therefore, to establish an alliance between the Federal government and the wealthy class.

Hamilton was arrogant and ambitious. But there was no reason to doubt the sincerity of his beliefs, which he expressed with a frankness that was often indiscreet. He was a man of great personal charm and superlative courage. His financial integrity, though sometimes challenged, appears to have been complete.

Public Credit

Hamilton’s financial program was embodied in a series of reports submitted to Congress during 1790 and 1791. In the first of them, the Report of Public Credit, he recommended that the debt inherited from the Confederation (totaling about $50 million) should be funded at its face value and that the Federal government should also assume the debts of the states, which amounted to an additional $20 million.

The Treasury, he believed, could raise enough money by taxation to make regular interest payments and eventually to pay off the principal. Such a policy would strengthen the Federal Government by winning the support of all public creditors, while at the same time it would provide the moneyed classes with capital for new business enterprises.

The main objection to this plan was that much of the public debt was now held by a relatively small number of speculators, who had bought up at heavy discounts many of the certificates held by veterans. Men who had acquired certificate for as little as 20 percent of their face value would now receive 100 percent in return, the community as a whole being taxed to pay them.

For Hamilton, however, this was an advantage:

• Money spend through the nation would be spent on consumption,
• But money accumulated in the hands of a small class would be available for investment.

Congress voted by a substantial majority to fund the debt of the Confederation. The passage of the measure was considerably eased by the fact that nearly half the members of the House of Representatives were themselves holders of certificates.

But the proposal to assume the state debts aroused more antagonism. It was chiefly because the debts of the Northern states were much larger than those of South. It was therefore opposed by Southern Congressmen. They were beginning to feel that Hamilton’s program was designed mainly for the benefit of Northern business groups.

Hamilton, however, arranged a bargain through Jefferson, who had not yet made up his mind about the policies of his colleague. Congress was also debating the location of the new Federal capital provided for by the constitution. Jefferson persuaded some of the Virginia Congressmen not to vote against the assumption plan. In return Hamilton, through his influence with the Pennsylvania Congressmen, arranged that the Federal capital should be built on the Potomac rather than farther north. The government moved to Philadelphia in 1790 and to the new city of Washington in 1800.

The Excise

In a report on taxation, Hamilton recommended that, in addition to the tariff, the government should raise money through an excise duty on whisky, not only for financial reasons but also to strengthen Federal power through the back country. In general, Hamilton regarded taxes as positively beneficial, since they would compel people to engage in productive enterprise and make it impossible for them to live merely by subsistence farming.

The duty was voted by Congress, and caused trouble in western Pennsylvania. In 1794 attempts to collect the duty led to open defiance of Federal authority, chiefly among the Scotch-Irish. Hamilton persuaded Washington to call out the militia of four states to enforce obedience.

The demonstration of Federal authority speedily put an end to this so-called “Whisky Rebellion” and showed that the new government was capable of enforcing obedience to its decisions.

The Bank

In another report Hamilton recommended the establishment of a bank. Like the rest of his program, the proposal was based largely on British experience. The projected Bank of the United States, like the Bank of England, was to assist the government by holding its funds, and, when necessary, by making loans.

By issuing notes that would circulate as money, the bank would help to maintain an adequate and stable currency; and by extending credit to businessmen engaging in new enterprises, it would promote economic expansion.

One-fifth of the capital was to be contributed by the government and four-fifths by private investors, so that ownership and control of the bank would be predominantly in private hands.

In order to understand Hamilton’s argument for the bank, it should be realized that the Treasury proposed to restrict its issue of money to the coinage of gold and silver, and not to print any paper money. According to orthodox economic doctrine, precious metal was the only reliable form of currency, though it could be supplemented by bank notes as long as these could always be redeemed for gold or silver and were issued in strictly limited quantities.

During the 18th century the American people had had unhappy experiences with paper money not backed by gold or silver. It was assumed that, as a result of lack of public confidence, such money could never serve as a reliable medium of exchange.

Thus the amount of money in circulation must always be limited by the amount of precious metal available. Later generations, through the 19th and 20th centuries, were to see prolonged and bitter controversies between supporters of a currency based on precious metal and groups who wished the government to increase the amount of money in circulation by issuing notes not redeemed in gold or silver.

Hamilton’s bank plan was opposed by Jefferson, who by this time had developed a number of objections to the whole Hamiltonian program. Jefferson felt that the bank would give excessive power over the national group of private investors. But he chose to oppose the bank on the ground that the chartering of it was not explicitly authorized by the Constitution.

To Jefferson’s argument that the functions of the Federal government should be limited by a “strict construction” of the words of the Constitution. Hamilton replied by developing a theory of “implied powers.” Washington supported Hamilton, and in 1791 the bank was established by Congress with a charter to run for twenty years.

Aid for Manufacturing

In his final report Hamilton recommended Federal aid to manufacturing. Criticizing the laissez-faire doctrine of Adam Smith, he argued that infant industries in a young country needed protection, and that the United States ought to aim at greater economic independence of Europe.

He suggested a higher protective tariff, direct subsidies, and various other measures. This report, however, had little immediate effect. The two economic groups with the greatest influence in Congress were the Northern merchants and Southern planters. The Northern merchants had secured a Navigation Act for the protection of American shipping in 1789.

None of the mentioned groups were interested in proposals which would tend to reduce foreign trade. The manufacturing interest did not become strong enough to obtain much government protection until after the War of 1812.

Formation of Political Parties during the Presidency of George Washington

In spite of general belief that political parties necessarily led to corruption and to government in the interests of a dominant fraction rather than of the community as a whole, the divergent ideals and economic interests among the American people quickly caused them to become divided into two opposing groups.

Hamilton’s financial program served as a catalyst. Its supporters, being largely the same men who had campaigned for the ratification of the Constitution, continued to call themselves Federalists, while their opponents assumed the name of Republicans. This original Republican Party corresponds to the present Democratic Party, the name being changed during the Jacksonian period. The modern Republican Party was founded in 1854.

Hamilton’s political theories and the policies that implemented them, appealed to those who believed in government by “the wise, the rich and the wellborn.” In general, they felt that democracy meant mob rule and anarchy. His policies benefited merchants, financiers and manufacturers rather than planters and farmers. Thus his policies were more advantageous to the North than to the more exclusively agricultural south.

The Federalist Party therefore represented aristocracy as opposed to agriculture; and while it had some support from wealthy men in the South, it was predominantly a Northern party. The backbone of the organization consisted of the Northern merchants, especially in New England.

The opposition to Hamilton began among the Southern planters. James Madison, who had originally been the spokesman for the administration in the House of Representatives, had turned against Hamilton in 1790 during the debate on the public-credit proposals.

Although he had been a leading Federalist during the making of the Constitution, Madison was quite consistent in his views. He believed in a balance between opposing interests, whereas Hamilton’s program appeared to mean an exclusive domination by the moneyed interest. During the controversy about the bank, Madison was joined by Thomas Jefferson. The two men then set out to find allies.

They could already count on the support of most of the South. Also in the North there were a number of influential men who had either political or personal reasons for disliking Hamilton. In particular there was George Clinton. In spite of his opposition to the Constitution he was still Governor of New York. In New York City, there was also a rising young lawyer named Aaron Burr, who was soon to develop some useful connections with a democratic political club known as the Tammany Society. An alliance between the Virginians and New Yorkers thus became the nucleus of the new Republican Party.

Jefferson and Madison could win support from democratic elements in New England, including the elderly Sam Adams and his followers and in Pennsylvania, which supplied Albert Gallatin, a young immigrant from Switzerland who became the party expert on finance.

The new party was far from being an embodiment of pure idealism. It included a fair proportion of ambitious office-hunters who were interested in patronage rather than in principles. For example, despite an ancestry heavily studded with Puritan ministers and college presidents, Aaron Burr was an unscrupulous adventurer, endowed with great personal charm but with no morals whatever. For such leaders as Jefferson and Madison, however, the purpose of Republicanism was to maintain the ideals of the American Revolution:

• The ideals of popular government,
• The rights of man and
• Protection for the interests of the mass of the people rather than of a privileged upper class.

Jefferson believed that Hamilton was secretly seeking to destroy republican government in the United States and set up a monarchy on the European style, and that his doctrine of “implied powers” would undermine those limitations of Federal authority upon which popular liberty depended. For this reason the Republicans, at any rate as long as their opponents controlled the Federal government, continued to preach “strict construction,” declaring that Federal power must be limited in accordance with the words of the Constitution, and that the rights of the states must be scrupulously defended.

Of course, Hamilton, in actuality, had no such sinister intention. Although he frankly avowed his admiration for the British form of government, he was loyal to the Constitution as he understood it. But whereas for Jefferson the key word was always “liberty,” Hamilton thought mainly of discipline. Unable to believe that any educated man could sincerely believe in rule by the people, he described Jefferson as a “contemptible hypocrite.” He was convinced that Jefferson’s impractical doctrines would lead to general anarchy, followed probably by the dictatorship of some power-hungry demagogue or military chieftain.

It was in 1791 when the two party organizations began to take shape. Members of Congress and of the state legislatures affiliated themselves with one party or the other and organized “caucuses” to decide on party policies and to choose candidates for forthcoming elections.

Each party established its own newspapers, the editor of the principal Republican paper being the poet Philip Freneau. The newspapers engaged n the unrestrained vituperation that has always characterized American political journalism.

Thus the American people became divided into two groups, each regarding the other with intense suspicion. Wealthy mercantile families in cities like Philadelphia and New York refused to have any relations with men suspected of being “democrats,” a word whose connotations were similar to those of “radical” today and accused them of plotting to subvert all law and order and bring about anarchy. On the other hand, Republican craftsmen and farmers were convinced that American liberties were endangered by a monarchist conspiracy.

Washington, although generally sympathetic with the Federalists, did not believe that the government should be exclusively controlled by either party, and therefore kept both Hamilton and Jefferson in the Cabinet. In 1792 George Washington reluctantly agreed to accept a second term at the request of both men, neither of whom felt that the government could stand the strain of a disputed election for the presidency.

At the end of 1793 Thomas Jefferson, finding himself consistently outvoted at Cabinet meetings, finally induced Washington to allow him to resign. He was replaced by another Virginia Republican, Edmund Randolph. But Randolph was quickly ousted by the Federalists by means of charges, since proved false, of corrupt connections with the French ministers, and his successor was an extreme Federalist from Massachusetts, Timothy Pickering. Thus the attempt to maintain a bipartisan Cabinet was finally abandoned and the administration became exclusively Hamiltonian.

George Washington’s Foreign Policy

The French Revolution

Throughout Washington’s administration, and for a long time afterwards, the dominating factor in western world was the French Revolution, started in the spring of 1789. In the long run this cataclysmic event led to the overthrow of absolute monarchy and the spread of liberal institutions throughout Western Europe. But its immediate results were much less desirable.

After three years of moderately, power was assumed in 1792 by a group of radical Jacobins, who professed to believe in the democratic doctrines of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. They crushed opposition groups in a ruthless reign of terror, became involved in a conflict with Great Britain and most of the continental Europe. They also proclaimed their intention of abolishing monarchy and spreading the ideals of the Revolution throughout the world.

This was followed by 23 years of almost incessant war, in the course of which the Jacobin program of liberating the people of other countries gradually degenerated into French imperialism, while the Jacobins themselves gave place in 1795 to the more moderate but very corrupt government of the Directory and in 1799 to the personal rule of the most successful of the French generals, Napoleon Bonaparte. Peace was not finally re-established until Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815.

Americans of all classes were deeply interested in the progress of the Revolution, and after rise of the Jacobins, there were sharp divergences in opinion. While many of the Republicans continued to regard the French as engaged in a struggle for the rights of man, the Federalists were horrified by the Jacobin reign of terror and alarmed by the Jacobin program of world-wide revolution.

The Federalists interpreted events in France as a corroboration of all their fears of democracy and of the doctrinaire rationalism of the Enlightenment. Thus the Revolution did much to sharpen party differences in the United States.

Meanwhile, the long European war meant both problems and opportunities for American diplomacy. Both British and the French showed little respect for the rights of neutrals and interfered with American trade. On the other hand, their preoccupation with the struggle in Europe meant that they could no longer pay much attention to the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. By refusing to become involved with either side, the United States was able to strengthen her position on the North American mainland.

Washington’s Neutrality Policy

Washington closely supervised the foreign policy of his administration, displaying an invaluable realism and coolness of judgment. One of his primary concerns was to make it plain that the United States was a genuinely independent country, concerned with the defense of her own interests, and no longer the subsidiary of any European power.

This lesson, he felt, must be learned by the Americans themselves. Because some of the Americans still had a colonial psychology and kept a traditional attachment to Great Britain, while others were too passionately concerned with the conflict of ideologies in Europe. As he declared in his Farewell Address, “Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.”

While Washington was not opposed to war and to temporary alliances with other countries when American interests were at stake, he believed that the United States needed a long period of peace in order to build up her strength, even if this meant some temporary surrender of American rights. He therefore resisted both Federalists pressure for involvement on the side of Britain and Republican pressure for aid to France.

When the war started, the French apparently assumed that the treaty of alliance of 1778 was still in force. While they did not expect the United States to become a belligerent, they were hoping for sympathy and economic assistance. The first diplomatic representative of the French Republic, Edmond-Charles Genêt, tried to use American ports as bases for French privateers, enlisted American citizens for a projected invasion of the Spanish colonies. He also meddled in American internal politics on the side of the Republicans.

But in April 1793 Washington issued a proclamation affirming American neutrality. When Genêt continued his activities, Washington asked for his recall. Fearful of being guillotined if he returned to France, Genêt remained in the United States as a private citizen, marrying a daughter of Governor Clinton and settling down as a farmer in Hudson Valley.

Controversies with Britain

The next threat to American neutrality came from the British navy, which established a blockade of France and the French colonies, including those in the West Indies. The British began to seize American ships carrying goods that belonged to French citizens or bringing to French ports articles declared to be contraband. American protests that “free ships make free goods” and that only goods destined for the use of armed forces could fairly be considered contraband were disregarded.

An even more flagrant violation of neutral rights was the British practice of impressments. The British government insisted that any of its subjects found among the crews of neutral ships might be impressed for service in the British navy. Also they regarded anybody of British birth as still a British subject, refusing to recognize any right to change citizenship by naturalization.

British naval officers in need of men therefore began to stop American ships and search them for British subjects. In a number of instances they proceeded to impress men of bona fide American birth.

In addition to the blockade and impressments, other American grievances were the continued British occupation of posts south of the Great Lakes and the British assistance given to Native American tribes in the Northwest Territory. In 1791 Native Americans equipped with British weapons had defeated Arthur St. Clair, governor of the Territory, in a battle in what is now western Ohio.

By the spring of 1794 the two countries were dangerously close to was. Washington, however, was determined to try to negotiate a settlement, supported by the Federalists. They were motivated not only by their fear of revolutionary France but also by economic considerations.

The New England merchants carried on valuable trade with Great Britain, and much of it was financed by British bankers. In spite of British confiscations, they were making big profits as a result of the war. Much preferred taking their chances with the British navy to having any breach of commercial relations.

Washington therefore dispatched Chief Justice John Jay as envoy extraordinary to Great Britain. Jay’s task was rendered easier by events in the Northwest Territory. In the summer of 1794 General Anthony Wayne defeated the Native Americans in the battle of Fallen Timbers. It was an event which ended British hopes of keeping control of the Territory.

Jay’s Treaty, signed in November 1794 and ratified the following year, was a diplomatic defeat for the United States. This was not wholly Jay’s fault, since Hamilton threw away his one trump card by assuring the British minister in Philadelphia that under no circumstances would the United States join forces with Britain’s opponents.

The British did agree to evacuate the Northwest Territory. On the other hand, Jay accepting the British position on neutral rights of trade, failed to secure any substantial commercial concessions. In the United States the treaty was vehemently denounced by the Republicans as a surrender to Britain. Washington, however, decided that it was preferable to war, and at his recommendation the Senate ratified it. Most historians have felt that this was a wise decision.

Pinckney’s Treaty with Spain

The diplomatic failure in London was followed by a success at Madrid. Since the beginning of his administration Washington had been attempting to secure the opening of the Mississippi to American trade. In 1795 Spain became an ally of France, and her government, anticipating war with Great Britain, resolved to establish friendly relations with the United States.

The American minister, Thomas Pinckney, was able to negotiate a treaty by which Americans could have unlimited use of the Mississippi and could deposit at New Orleans duty free goods, intended for export. Spain also promised to restrain the Native American tribes on the American frontier, agreeing to a boundary settlement in accordance with American claims.

Thus, before the end of the presidency of George Washington, much had been done to establish American security in the West. In the long run, control of the Northwest Territory and free navigation of the Mississippi were much more vital to American development than neutral rights of trade.

Slavery during the Presidency of George Washington

The Pennsylvania Abolition Society engaged in an unprecedented lobbying campaign to abolish slavery in 1790. Most southern congressmen had intense opposition to their effort. They used to block any attempt to abolish slavery, an institution that was important to their plantation economy. Congressional leaders put the proposals aside without voting on them, after a contentious debate, setting a precedent in which Congress generally avoided discussing slavery.

Congress passed two acts related to slavery during the Washington administration:

1. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which made it a federal crime to assist an escaping slave. It established the legal system by which escaped slaves would be returned to their masters;
2. The Slave Trade Act of 1794, which limited the United States' involvement in the transportation of slaves by prohibiting the export of slaves from the country.

George Washington’s vetoes

The Constitution granted the president the power to veto legislation. But Washington was reluctant to encroach on legislative affairs. He exercised his veto power twice only. To stop an apportionment act from becoming law, he exercised his presidential veto power for the first time on April 5, 1792.

The bill would have redistributed House seats among the states in a way that George Washington considered unconstitutional. Congress soon wrote new legislation, the Apportionment Act of 1792, after attempting but failing to override the veto. It was signed into law on April 14 by Washington.

He used his second veto on February 28, 1797 regarding a military act.

Salary of George Washington

Congress voted to pay the president a salary of $25,000 a year, and the vice president an annual salary of $5,000 On September 24, 1789. It is estimated that Washington's salary was equal to two percent of the total federal budget in 1789.

Conclusion

Worn out by the duties of an office which he had never wished to occupy, Washington insisted on retiring at the end of his second term in 1797. Washington died two years later after his retirement. On leaving public life, he summarized his political beliefs in a Farewell Address. Like most presidential state papers, this was a cooperative product. Both Madison and Hamilton helped to write it, but the ideas were Washington’s.

The most famous passage in the address dealt with foreign policy. He declared, “Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation………………………….Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…………………………We may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.” In expressing these sentiments George Washington was thinking primarily of the dangerous partnerships excited among the American people by the French Revolution.

He believed that the best interests of the United States would be served, as long as she remained a relatively weak country, by remaining aloof from European entanglements. His doctrine of isolation was intended as a temporary expedient, not as a permanent policy for the guidance of future generations, after the United States had become one of the world’s great powers.

ALSO CLICK:-

George Washington: The Beginner's American History.

Presidency of George Washington Sources:

1. Freeman D.S. (1948-57), George Washington: 7 Volumes.
2. Miller J.C. (1960), The Federalist Era.
3. Charles J. (1956), Origins of the American Party System.
4. Fischer D.H. (1965), The Revolution of American Conservatism.
5. Chambers W. N. (1963), Political Parties in a New Nation.
6. Miller J.C. (1959), Alexander Hamilton, Portrait in Paradox.
7. White L.D. (1948), The Federalists.