Special Smashwords Edition
Presidential
Power
In
Troubled Second Terms
By
Alfred J. Zacher
Presidential
Power: In
Troubled Second Terms
Special
Smashwords Edition
This
eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This eBook may
not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you’re reading
this eBook and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your
use only, then you should return it and purchase your own copy. Thank
you for respecting the hard work of the author.
Copyright © 2012 by Alfred J. Zacher. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book, or portions thereof, in any form. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical without the express written permission of the author. The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and punishable by law. Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted materials.
The publisher does not have any control over and does not assume any responsibility for author or third-party websites or their content.
Cover
designed by Brian Art, Ferguson Advertising, Inc.
http://www.fai2.com
Cover art Copyright © iStockPhoto # 13105092/July 4th Bunting Background
Published
by Telemachus Press, LLC at
Smashwords
http://www.smashwords.com
http://www.telemachuspress.com
Visit the author's website at http://www.presidentialsecondterms.com
ISBN
978-1-937698-37-9 (eBook)
ISBN 978-1-937698-38-6 (paperback)
Version 2012.01.29
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Alfred J. Zacher holds an undergraduate degree from Antioch College and a master's degree in economics from the University of Michigan. He has studied social movements and political trends for over forty years and spent ten years researching and writing his first book Trial & Triumph: Presidential Power in the Second Term, which included a special tutorial at Indiana University.
Zacher became interested in the presidential second term when he read a review of Henry Adams' The Administrations of Thomas Jefferson, in which Adams described Jefferson's troubled second term. The plights of both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were still vivid memories, and he recalled clearly how his court-packing effort plagued Franklin Roosevelt in his second term. He questioned whether there was something about this time in office which deserved examination. And so the study began.
President Bill Clinton read the book and commented on it during his first press conference after being reelected. As a result of these remarks, Zacher was interviewed on the TODAY SHOW for Clinton’s Inaugural. He also appeared on Chris Mathews, again for Clinton’s Inaugural, as well as for the impeachment hearings. He was also interviewed on C-SPAN’s BOOKNOTES. In addition, Zacher has been quoted in the New York Times, Scripps Howard Newspapers and various other media publications.
Zacher has now updated his book with chapters on William Jefferson Clinton, George W. Bush, a revised “Conclusion” and “Epilogue” on President Obama with the new title PRESIDENTIAL POWER in Troubled Second Terms.
Zacher has been in the practice of industrial and commercial real estate for fifty years in Fort Wayne, Indiana. He and his wife Hannah are the parents of two children and have six grandsons.
Presidential
Power
In
Troubled Second Terms
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I became interested in the presidential second term when I read a review of Henry Adams' The Administrations of Thomas Jefferson, in which Adams described Jefferson's troubled second term. The plights of both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were still vivid memories, and I recalled clearly how his court-packing effort plagued Franklin Roosevelt in his second term. I questioned whether there was something about this time in office that deserved examination, so I began my study.
My approach was to investigate in considerable detail each of nineteen presidents elected to a second term, regardless of how they acceded to their first term. My research led to a chapter on each president and a search for a conclusion. The book now contains an introduction that outlines six measures a president must fulfill for success, the tools to reach such success and a chapter on each of these two term presidents. The “Conclusion” chapter attempts to draw all of this together, reviewing how presidents grasp hold of the office to achieve their objectives, and why so many have experienced troubled or failed second terms. Finally, I have inserted a rating of each of the two term presidents, using the six measures for success for the reader to rank the presidents as well.
I owe a special thanks to all of those who have aided and encouraged me in this endeavor. Steve Jackson of Telemachus Press took multi-tasking to a new level in his managing the publication of the book. Karen Lieberman provided professional editing that was imbued with great care and skill. Special appreciation to Steve Himes of Telemachus Press for his careful oversight of the publication of the book. Tom Beadie, Ed Breen, Carolyn Brody, Sara Gabard and Norma Slatin were stalwart readers, providing important criticism and editing. Dr. Elliot Bartky, my tutor, provided essential technical criticism and biographical and creative perspectives into each of the presidents. Michael Thena created the web page. Rich Ferguson and his firm provided the cover design and Kevin Erb transported me fully into the age of the internet and the social network.
I, of course, take full responsibility for any errors that may exist in this manuscript.
INTRODUCTION
Succeeding
in a Second
Term
Any list of America's greatest presidents is dominated by those who have been elected to a second term. As Michael Beschloss stated, “One of the best things a sitting President can do to burnish his reputation among future generations is to get reelected.” It is the second term that not only tests the mettle of the president, but it also offers a lens that focuses on the enduring essence of the presidency itself.
Paradoxically, the elements essential for successful presidential leadership have not changed over time, despite the growth and wider scope of government, the fear of an “imperial presidency,” the dilution of party influence and the power of television and the internet, allowing a comparative evaluation of presidents from the days of George Washington to the present. Although the final judgment of a presidency is a melding of his two terms in office, the second term provides the best measure of the Chief Executive for it is then that a president has experience in office and should be most comfortable wearing the mantle of authority granted by the electorate. It is then that the president is under the greatest scrutiny and stress that draws forth his true character and temperament.
Twenty presidents have been elected to a second term, a threshold for greatness. Yet, for many of these, frustration, failure and even disaster followed their reelection. For a relative few, success meant overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles, while for others apparent success was followed by failure in the judgment of history. The second term has been a time of great stress or travail to such presidents as Jefferson, Monroe, Grant, Cleveland, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon, and George W. Bush. But, for others, such as Washington, Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and even Reagan, their second terms were times of success or even triumph. What caused this great variation; why have presidents faltered and so few succeeded?
It is in the second term that the elements of presidential leadership are crystallized, when innovation can be implemented and authority expanded. By the second term, Theodore Roosevelt would find more meaningful ways to communicate with a public now familiar with his rhetoric. For Monroe and Wilson, Congress found the means to frustrate the agenda of the Chief Executive. In some respects Jefferson became a lame duck with diminished political power in his second term. In several instances, unexpected crises arose, denying the president the benefit of the authority granted a newly reelected president particularly when there is a landslide victory. Both Cleveland and Johnson faced this challenge. Franklin Roosevelt's reelection victory led to a spirit of invincibility, clouding his judgment. Historically, the second term became a time of trial or triumph.
Vision, leadership, courage in the face of adversity, honesty, and political skill embodied in the character and temperament of a president interplay to effect his leadership through the four long years of a second term.
The ability of a president to survive and sometimes triumph through what can be the fire of the second term tells much about the American people and their idea of what a president ought to accomplish. The public will approve and even applaud innovation in a president; but this must conform to the following deep-seated convictions which appear not to have changed significantly from the founding of the nation, namely those implicit in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the writings of the founders.
First, the American people want to feel secure from attack, external or internal, real or imagined.
Second, Americans strive for economic security and individual freedom. This becomes the first priority for Americans if there is no foreign threat. This, of course, was and is the foundation for freedom and democracy.
Third, America is historically conservative. Only economic upheaval, foreign threat and social stress will cause the nation to veer from that path. Further, change, once implemented, frequently becomes the norm.
Fourth, the nation believes, conditionally, in fair play. The treatment of the Native Americans and African-Americans provides evidence that civil rights, civil liberties, or economic innovation become a cause for this nation only when strong leadership is joined with a sizable discontented minority demanding change.
Fifth, law and order, with moralistic and religious overtones to preserve freedom and democracy, is part of the American psyche. The president has traditionally been considered the high priest of morality and justice. This is one reason that Nixon was deposed so quickly after Watergate. It is why Grant lost favor with his party as evidence of graft in his administration was revealed. Conversely, it is the reason Jefferson was loved, despite his failings.
These five characteristics of Americans are particularly relevant to the second term because a president must tend to achieve or take into account fulfillment of many of these goals, first to be reelected and then to achieve success in a more challenging second term. The leadership role of a president must relate to these consistently held values of the American people.
The lessons of history may not induce the nation to select the best candidate for the presidency, but the public may better judge the candidate's potential in office from the message given by history.
To succeed, presidents must fulfill the challenge of a significant number of the following six measures, which express the goals of Americans:
One: The president must provide defense against foreign or domestic threat.
Two: The president must retain or expand economic, political, and/or social opportunity. As stated above this becomes the first priority if Americans feel there is minimal foreign threat.
Three: The president must effectively lead Congress. Since the nation began there has been a perennial conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government. Most presidents will extend their exclusive bands of authority to the utmost. Jackson was the first president to clearly establish the executive branch as being “first among equals.” Congress, on the other hand, generally seeks to limit the president's freedom of action. It maintained a dominant role for over twenty years beginning with the latter days of Jefferson's administration. Congress does not readily give up its effort to be the dominant branch; and if it succeeds in a first term, this is one basis for a president's failure to win reelection. By the second term, Congress has made its judgment of the president, often irrespective of party affiliation or party control. It then makes the most of its insights to hamper the president in his intuitive, sometimes extra legal, use of his power and authority potentially turning him into a lame duck. By the second term, Congress will have established the ground rules for its match with the president. The outcome is a measure of the effectiveness of the Chief Executive.
Four: The president must avoid a spirit of invincibility, of hubris, which might cause a president to lose touch with political reality. The president elected to a second term, particularly if by a landslide, will be tempted by the exhilaration of victory to feel an inordinate sense of power, of excessive self confidence. The temptation is then to maneuver Congress and the nation to implement plans and programs which the nation or Congress is not ready to adopt or which are ill-advised and inappropriate.
Five: The president must exercise influence over and effectively communicate with the nation. He must be able to communicate persuasively. Such “communication” is almost beyond definition. Popular adulation for Jackson rivaled that enjoyed by Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. Television mastery and internet communication are now required, as was influence with the press in bygone eras, but the results remain the same. Jefferson encouraged his friends to communicate his messages for him; Lincoln used speeches, debates and letters to convey his message. The president must communicate; and whatever the means, he must do so persuasively.
Six: The majority of the American people must have believed in the president’s integrity and have sustained a substantial level of pride in the President throughout his eight years in office, despite specific shortcomings. He must have strengthened the nation, on balance, by his actions. The president shall leave a legacy for the nation.
The following are four qualities of leadership and temperament, as well as supporting tools that provide guidance for a president to succeed:
One: The president must display innovative, visionary leadership that incorporates and conforms to the basic political character of Americans.
Two: The president must have the courage and temperament to lead in the face of adversity and diminished popularity. He must establish priorities. This, of course, assumes that the goals and priorities of such leadership are in the best long-term interest of the nation, a criterion that may be lacking when such courage is manifested.
Throughout history presidents have faced the challenging task of leading the nation into unpopular directions. Truman presented the Marshall Plan to a Congress that wished to turn only to domestic concerns after the war. Lincoln faced riots and general unrest in response to the draft and a war that dragged on endlessly as battle after battle was lost and the number of dead and wounded mounted.
Three: The president must provide effective and consistent leadership through eight years. He must show ability to govern. He must sustain his leadership despite all the stresses of office and changing events, no matter how catastrophic. The character and temperament of a president may function effectively only within a limited set of circumstances, and a tenure of eight years expands the possibility that events may arise to bring out the worst of these qualities. In eight years, the diversity of events and crises take the full measure of the man.
Four: The president must have self-confidence. No quality in a president exceeds that of self-confidence and of knowing himself. Some degree of realistic self-preservation is needed, for, if the president does not survive, the nation is diminished. The president must be comfortable enough with himself to select capable advisors and to listen to their advice. He must pay attention to the world outside a cloistered White House. The president must be flexible, he must learn to change with times and events and to comprehend the nature of the obstacle at hand. He must inspire confidence.
These ten measures and guides for a successful president listed in this Introduction may be utilized to allow a voter to compare candidates and to evaluate how their character and temperament will function in the office of the presidency. Further, these measures may give some clue about how Obama might fare in a second term were he to be reelected.
The following chapters are about nineteen presidents elected to a second term. Lincoln is included because he fulfilled his vision for the nation and for himself as president in his brief second term. McKinley is excluded, as his second term was cut short before any achievement was possible. Other than McKinley, any president elected to a second term is included, whether his first term was by election or succession. Readers may judge for themselves how effectively each president used the mantle of authority given them by their reelection and the impact of character and temperament on their success, utilizing these ten elements of leadership. Further, the reader is encouraged to observe the ebb and flow of congressional power and the level of responsibility given the federal government over time.
Character, temperament, political acumen, and great insight into the meaning of democracy and freedom, and of liberty, were somehow distilled in George Washington. They came together in such unique proportion that the United States would be assured of its ascendency among nations and of the elevation of its creative form of government to become the standard for others to follow. The fulfillment of the office of the presidency cannot be other than a reflection of the character of the man holding the office and of the times in which he serves. In no instance is this more clearly revealed than it is with George Washington in his second term.
The British, The French and their emissaries bore down on George Washington during his second administration. During the Revolution the British had been his enemy and had considered him a traitor, whereas the French had rescued the rebel who was the Commander-in-Chief of the Revolutionary forces. They sent funds and men to assist the American Revolution, sufficient in the minds of some, to have brought down the French Empire. The French General Rochambeau planned the Battle of York and he was probably the strategist of that great success. The French fought side by side with the American forces, and Lafayette was like a son to Washington. But all of this faded into memory as Washington's second term began. The adversity encountered by Washington after his second inaugural came no less from the British, from the French, from the rapidly developing Democratic-Republican Party, from a revolt of distillers in Western Pennsylvania, and from those who opposed his Jay Treaty with England.
Washington, that imposing patrician of six feet three inches, had hands which Lafayette said were the largest he had seen. His complexion was fair, but florid; his weight was above 220 pounds. Washington was a man who endeavored to conceal his sensitivity to public criticism and to control his tendency to be enraged by attacks against him. He projected dignity and self-confidence, but he held himself aloof in a way which impressed all who came into his presence.
His self confidence, his dignity, his love of country, his great honesty, his pride, his aloof bearing characterized Washington. He perceived that the country would grow and flourish if protected from all but commercial foreign involvement. This determined the spirit of his terms in office, particularly his second. He had visited in New England, and knew the British and the French. He had exulted in the farming of his estate, but he had observed New England manufacturing and trading as well. He had witnessed the financial sagacity exhibited in Philadelphia. And it was this perspective and these experiences which came to bear on his second term.
Washington understood both the nation's potential and its weaknesses in relation to the major powers. He understood his own nature and understood that he would be called upon to carry the nation through its incubation. His very bearing, his determination, his mediation, his guidance, the allegiance he could elicit from all competing forces would be the threads he would use to weave a fabric binding the people together. He and the nation must rise above the fray. It must be a great nation, and he must be a great leader for that to occur.
George and Martha Washington thrived at Mount Vernon, absorbing the pleasures of plantation life to which Washington returned after retiring as Commander-in-Chief of the Revolutionary forces in 1783. He reluctantly left Mount Vernon to act as presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention which convened in Philadelphia in 1787, bringing much needed prestige to that gathering.
When the first Electoral College met in the nation's capital, New York City, in 1789, it unanimously elected George Washington as President. Washington was loath to accept the Presidency, but the country thought only of him for the highest office in the land. John Adams was elected Vice President.
The Washington presidency in its initial term was a time for formalization and implementation of the institutions created by the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution. Governing over a nation of four million people in thirteen states, George Washington perceived clearly that each step he took represented the establishment of a precedent with an awesome influence upon the future of the nation. He perceived the importance of the separation of authority of the legislative, judicial and executive branches of the government, and he believed it to be his duty to help establish that independence within reasonable bounds.
Washington steered his administration through several initiatives during his first term. These included Alexander Hamilton's plan to pay the wartime debts of all of the states and of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation.
Congress moved the Federal capital to Philadelphia during this time, and later passed a bill establishing a new national capital to be located in a federal district on the Potomac. Washington tolerated the feud between Alexander Hamilton, his Secretary of Treasury, and Jefferson, his Secretary of State, over the constitutionality of a national bank. After much dispute, Congress approved the bank, and Washington willingly signed the law. This was the first battle of what was to become a developing conflict between Hamilton's Federalist Party and Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.
The feud between the two men was steeped in philosophical, political, economic, and personal differences that ran deep. Hamilton saw the future of the country in a very different light than did Jefferson. Hamilton promoted the strong cultivation of manufacturing through government action. The plan set forth in his “Report on Manufacturing” would have promoted the manufacture of products in the north utilizing southern crops—to unify and strengthen the nation. He saw an ever stronger and expanding government involving itself in finance, through the bank and in support of manufacturing. Jefferson feared this larger government would lead to a form of monarchy. He and Madison believed that democracy could only survive and thrive if government was in the hands of the producers of goods, the farmer who tilled his field, the craftsman who worked with his hands. They feared that the manufacturing employee evolving under Hamilton's plan would not be part of the democratic process but would be subjugated by his employer, and that the nation would in fact head toward power in the hands of wealthy manufacturers, becoming a kind of monarchy. Jefferson would fight to preserve democracy for the unfettered freedom-thinking individual, the farmer of his day. Hamilton would build a financially and industrially strong economic base for the nation run by an intellectual and business elite.
Although Washington had decided to retire after his first term, he was persuaded by the arguments of Madison, Hamilton, and most particularly by Jefferson, to accept a second term. Washington came to understand that the nation might split asunder were he to leave office. The conflict between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians, coupled with a growing regionalism, required the steady hand that only Washington could provide. He was a man willing to risk his popularity—and that he surely had—to hold the nation together while it gathered its governmental strength. As with his first nomination, he was unopposed and was elected unanimously by the electors to a second term. John Adams was again elected to be his Vice President. The first term had been a time for organization and implementation for the Chief Executive and the new nation, a time to find its way and test its institutions. The second term would be filled with greater controversy.
The second term began in 1793 with hostility toward Washington's administration from throngs of pro-French citizens who felt a kinship to that now full-blown revolution and saw Washington as a man drawn toward monarchy. It was glib to point to his aloofness, to his elegant dinner parties, and to his solitary rides in a carriage as a basis for the charges. But more was at stake in the pro-French criticism. In the minds of many Americans the French Revolution fulfilled Jefferson's definition of democracy as a direct government of all of the people. Consequently, the pro-French in America typically favored Jeffersonian policies and opposed Hamilton's Federalist views which were perceived as aiding the rich and as being synonymous with British rule and the power of a monarchy. Unfortunately Washington was tarred with the brush of Hamiltonian “monarchy” and the personal attacks deeply affected the sensitive President.
In his second Inaugural Address Washington confronted the task of fulfilling his duty in office in the face of such criticism. He spoke of the right and obligation of citizens to upbraid him and if necessary to mete upon him constitutional punishment if he did not fulfill his administrative duties satisfactorily. In a rather perfunctory statement he reiterated that he would attempt to fulfill the high honor and confidence bestowed upon him by the country. Washington stated firmly and succinctly that he and the nation would adhere to the highest and most rigid standards of constitutional and democratic governance. It was an uninspiring address, one that could hardly drive the listener to action in support of the newly reelected President. That was not its purpose. Washington, stalwart and self-confident, was simply addressing squarely and quietly the task he set for himself and the nation—to get on with the implementation of government that had so recently begun.
The year 1793 witnessed the intensification of European conflicts. The revolutionary upheaval in France erupted in a war between France and Austria, Prussia, and Great Britain although other European nations joined the hostilities; Great Britain and France became the primary combatants. The war between France and Britain consumed those two European powers and much of the continent. Washington was determined to remain apart from the belligerents, hoping that the infant country would grow, mature, and flourish in a protected and unmolested environment. He, as well as Jefferson, believed that trade with foreign nations was possible without political or military consequences. Much as a parent prefers a somewhat controlled and sequestered environment for the development of a child, Washington felt that excessive military and political contact with other nations would harm the young American state.
The European wars would not stay their place, however. America's growing merchant fleet traded prolifically with Britain. The British, who ruled the seas followed policies which would eventually bring the infant republic squarely into the fray between the Continental powers. The British Navy lacked seamen. Their rough treatment of naval crews caused widespread desertions to American ships, prompting the British to stop many American vessels to recoup or indenture any sailors who had jumped ship to the more appealing U.S. vessel. But who was to distinguish the British sailor from the American? The resulting indenture of American merchant men resulted in a fire storm of protests. To further complicate matters, both the British and the French confiscated any property on an American vessel which they determined to be the property of their enemy, the French. Early in the conflict this was a frequent British practice and the sizeable American merchant marine, without naval protection, was swamped by seamen boarding from British warships who promptly relieved the American ships of their valued cargos as well as their seamen.
The French had their own scenario to play out for the American merchant marine. Foreign countries asserted the right to lease the merchant ships of the United States, outfitting them with military capability for their own purposes. The plunder taken from the ships of an opposing government could then be sold in the outfitting country for a handsome profit. The French, having a small navy, depended on this privateering of U.S. vessels to plunder British merchant ships sailing the Atlantic, confiscating and profiting in the process, intensifying the British-French conflict and America's involvement in that feud.
The public was overwhelmingly pro-French. No matter how much bloodshed the guillotines brought, American citizens felt a kinship with the revolutionary French whose nation had once assisted their own revolution. No matter that it was the guillotined French King who aided the American Revolution. No matter the violent and restrictive leadership at the French helm; in American eyes, a monarchy had been deposed, intensifying American support for the rule of government by the people.
The potential for a war with Britain heightened daily as the French expanded their surrogate navy provided by U.S. merchant ships. Washington and his cabinet feared that the British would not distinguish between an American vessel “privateered” by the French and one which was an American ship.
As tension increased, the vast popular support for the French cause weighed in the balance. Against this was the potential for war with Great Britain over attacks on British ships by American privateers and the indenturing of American seamen and plundering of American vessels by the British. Washington finally moved to action, declaring a policy of inaction known as the Neutrality Proclamation, which affirmed that no measures would be taken which would give assistance to either warring party. Washington was entering upon unchartered waters for the office he held, proceeding judiciously yet with deliberation.
Washington would have preferred that his Proclamation be approved by the Senate prior to its being issued. It was the first such proposal contemplated by the new nation. Further, Washington saw some personal political benefits from having a friendly Senate approve a plan that the pro-French might not like. The Constitution did not specifically grant the President the right to enforce neutrality except under his authority to conduct foreign policy. Only Congress could declare war. But could the President declare peace, which the Proclamation was designed to accomplish? Further, the Proclamation might be interpreted as aiding the British more than the French for the nation would no longer provide the much needed privateers for the French to ward off attacks from the well outfitted British Navy. There was ample room for Constitutional as well as political controversy. But the Senate was not in session. Washington had no choice. Abandoning his strict constitutional interpretation concerning the separation of powers, he issued a proclamation asserting that all Americans were to “pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers.” Citizens were cautioned that they would be prosecuted if their acts contributed to hostilities on the high seas.
On the surface, the Neutrality Proclamation would most immediately affect the privateering which served the French. The Democratic-Republicans, led by Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, were outraged. They saw the proclamation as a pro-British plot perpetrated by an administration favoring monarchy and influenced most clearly by Hamilton. His Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who had supported the neutrality position, although he opposed the Proclamation, attacked Washington and the policy openly and through his correspondence with Madison and Monroe. He encouraged these allies to oppose the Proclamation, which he had supported out of an underlying belief in neutrality and his feeling of loyalty to Washington. Jefferson opposed the Proclamation, however, as a Hamiltonian move which enhanced the power of the executive, and denied Congress its authority, while it abrogated a treaty of friendship with France.
The Democratic-Republican press delivered scurrilous attacks on Washington, asserting that the administration had been forced by the pro-British segment of the populace to propose the Neutrality Proclamation. Washington felt besieged and was angered by these attacks on him from this group which had previously shown such affection for him. (There had been a brief episode during the Revolution when an effort was made to replace him as Commander-in-Chief, but the public overwhelmingly came to his defense.) Now, his popular support appeared to be overshadowed by his vocal and hostile opponents.
The issuance of the Proclamation produced a great schism within his cabinet and within the nation, which Washington had desperately sought to avoid. Just as Washington wished to steer a neutral path between the two warring nations in Europe, so did he wish to avoid factionalism at home. The Democratic-Republicans saw Washington and his Administration as anti-French, pro-British, and, therefore, pro-monarch. “Pro-monarch” in the minds of the Republicans signified that the United States was destined to move toward Hamilton's elitist society and his program for the country.
It is reasonable to state that paranoia blanketed the Democratic-Republicans' thinking and their insight into the nature and character of Washington. While it was true that Hamilton and most Federalists admired and wished to emulate England and its form of government, including its financial institutions, this was hardly synonymous with wishing to crown George Washington king. Although the Jeffersonians were alarmed by what they believed to be the Hamiltonian threat of an elitist central government, there was little to support the view that Washington had been persuaded by Federalists as much as the Federalists would have liked, or to the degree that the Democratic-Republicans believed. Washington was of one view: the young republic must mature without undue influence from demagogues of any persuasion. Citizens must be permitted to make up their minds without undue influence from any minority strongly holding a particular view. In Washington's mind, to flourish, the young nation needed to be free from major commitments to parties, causes, or foreign pressures all of which he believed to be equally dangerous.
One of the more notorious events which took place during the controversy over the Neutrality Proclamation was the arrival of Edmond-Charles Genet. The recently appointed Ambassador from the newly formed Republic of France was the very symbol of the French Revolution. The American public voiced uncritical support for France and its envoy. Genet took the utmost advantage of his country's popularity to promote privateering of U.S. merchant ships on behalf of France. Even Jefferson admitted that this flew in the face of the Neutrality Proclamation. Genet asserted he would go over the head of the President and appeal directly to the people. Not satisfied with promoting privateering, he also developed a plan to raise an army of American citizens to seize Louisiana from Spain thereby creating an independent nation and French Protectorate on the North American continent.
Washington unalterably opposed Genet's intrigues and ordered them squelched, not only because they violated his presidential authority, but also because they were totally inconsistent with his views on neutrality. In addition, Genet's plans were altogether counter to Washington's considered views on the West and the frontier. He saw the undeveloped wilderness as a source of future growth which would enable consolidation of the Union. Any further entrenchment of a European power on the continent was an anathema to Washington's vision for the future of the country.
Ultimately Genet carried his audacity too far. When the public was fully informed of Genet's belief that he could overrule the President on matters of privateering and arming Americans, the public reversed itself and supported Washington, despite its strongly pro-French bias. Genet was relieved of his post as Ambassador and the controversy subsided, but not before Washington once again had been subjected to an intensive series of personal attacks in the press. One cartoonist depicted Washington being guillotined for his aristocratic demeanor, which the pro-French public perceived as a crime against democratic government.
Pressures built within Washington's cabinet. Hamilton, a devoted follower of Britain, its customs, and its government, hated and feared Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party. He believed that the Jeffersonian conviction that power must be decentralized might split the nation apart, north against south, farmers against businessmen. Jefferson for his part hated and distrusted Hamilton whom he saw as one who would crown Washington king, abolishing the Constitution, in the name of industrial, financial, and mercantile expansion. Much could be said about the nature of the conflict which raged between Hamilton and Jefferson as it related to the personalities of both men.
Hamilton saw government in terms of action, particularly as it related to commerce, industry, trade, and finance. It was a vigorous, overt, assertive world he saw. He trusted men of power who practiced his beliefs.
Jefferson, as his presidency would reflect, viewed the world through a different glass. He was a thoughtful, reflective, contemplative individual who trusted the common man to preserve the Constitution and individual freedoms. Jefferson was concerned that Hamilton's men of power would tyrannize the ordinary citizen. Hamilton feared that excessive individualism would lead the nation toward economic mediocrity and possible anarchy.
It was Washington's deeply felt opinion, based on his experience as a farmer at Mount Vernon and through his observation while traveling through and staying in New England, New York, and Philadelphia, that the young country needed the farmer, the small rural community, and the agrarian state. But he understood that the country also needed its financiers, merchants, and industrialists. He believed that the country should not be dependent on British-manufactured goods but should develop an industry of its own. To emphasize and express this point of view, he wore a suit made in New England to his first Inaugural. Above all, he wanted his cabinet to reflect these two views fully. He drank deeply from the cup of both Hamilton and Jefferson, drawing his own conclusion with each topic at hand, but also depending on the contribution of their ideas. He sought, through the force of his charisma, character and his own convictions to lead the cabinet and the nation through a political dispute that might rip the fabric of cohesion.
Jefferson felt compromised, however. He would not continue his presence in the cabinet, believing his position could find no expression, and that he and his views would be subverted by staying within the cabinet. As a member of Washington's cabinet, he felt that loyalty bound him to support the Neutrality Proclamation, though he distrusted it as being pro-British. By leaving the cabinet, he took no further chance of supporting any measure which was not fully to his liking. Jefferson, in fact, had become an unrelenting advocate of the Democratic-Republican agrarian position. His mind would admit no platform for which the scales might be balanced between one point of view and another. He found Washington to be weak by seeking balance and compromise. Jefferson could no longer abide an administration which evaluated all options but which appeared to side all too frequently with Hamilton. He broke loose from the cabinet, from Washington, and from what he felt was a monarchial-loving administration. The break between these old friends, fellow Virginians and revolutionaries, was complete and final. Washington experienced the departure as a tragic and catastrophic loss.
While the wars continued in Europe and the conflicts within his cabinet became acute, a potentially dangerous set of events was being set in motion for Washington in the western sections of the nation.
Hamilton and the Federalists, with Washington's concurrence, were diligent in their pursuit of a stronger federal government with an executive holding enhanced power and authority. Hamilton had consistently fostered programs, and in various formats, which brought the national government into commerce, manufacturing, and finance expanding the role and scope of federal power. As an expression of this, Hamilton encouraged the passage of a tax on whiskey production underscoring the power of the government to tax, to influence commerce, and to exercise its authority in the implementation of its laws. Washington, Hamilton and Congress acted and the whiskey producers responded.
While the tax on whiskey was assessed on all distillers alike, frontiersmen resented it most. Although all distillers were taxed, the small mountainside still was the major source of an impending fight. A tax on whiskey had been established as early as 1790, but it was not until 1794 that a crisis developed in western Pennsylvania over the tax. The settlers of that rugged western region, individualists, somewhat brazen in their temperament, were unprepared for interference from a distant federal government. Washington, in overseeing the law that set the tax, attempted compromise that would have achieved a solution within the law, but the frontiersmen were not placated. There was strong encouragement of the rebel position by the Democratic Societies—a swiftly developing group of clubs dedicated to the principles of Jefferson and Madison. The Societies saw the tax as a clear example of Hamiltonian interference with individual freedom. And Washington's support of the tax solidified their hostility toward Hamilton and the President. There soon evolved a battle of the small independent farmer and distiller against the encroachment of government through its taxing authority. The small distillers refused to pay the whiskey tax and threatened to secede from the Union.
The Whiskey Rebellion was not to be the traumatic set of events that it might have been for Washington. After every attempt at compromise failed, he was determined to defeat the movement which proclaimed that the tax would not be enforced. Washington clearly saw the impending danger were he to fail to set a precedent in this matter. Any minority group, section, or state that opposed a federal law might refuse to obey the law and secede. Washington acted. He called up the militia of several states, with the volunteers exceeding the need. The rebellion and the threat of secession were put down, while the authority of the federal government to enforce its laws was established.
Washington's final battle as President emanated from his desire to maintain peace for the United States in its relationships with Britain and France so as to allow the infant nation to grow and flourish. The United States became a significant sideline player in the battle between these warring nations. The same events which led to the Neutrality Proclamation were rife as no American seaman, merchant ship, or cargo was safe on the high seas. The British failed to release land they occupied in the western territories, and they were suspected of being the motivating force behind Indian raids and massacres.
Washington was determined to maintain peace, and to some, it seemed to be at all costs. But for Washington, the successful avoidance of war outweighed the significance of any compromise by a young country without navy or army to defend itself or to enforce its terms. He pursued his policy of avoidance of war unflinchingly and with steadfast courage.
Early in the spring of 1794, Washington selected John Jay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to act as his envoy to Great Britain, entrusting him with full power to negotiate a treaty resolving the disputes between the United States and Great Britain. After protracted delays for what seemed endless months, the treaty was delivered to Washington in March of 1795.
The treaty was a mixed bag of achievement and failure. The British had committed to withdrawing their western troops, and arrangements were also made for the payment of pre-revolutionary debts which Americans owed British merchants. Unfortunately Jay failed to negotiate the outlawing of Britain's practice of searching American ships for goods that might be bound for France and removing such cargo. Although the cargo was ultimately paid for by the British at full value, lengthy delays in such payments and the interference with free commerce made the intrusion a highly inflammatory one for the American ship owners, which the treaty should have resolved. Adding further insult, the treaty failed to make any reference to the continuing British policy of indenturing American seamen from ships they boarded.
One section of the treaty alarmed both the President and the Senate. It concerned a restriction on American shipping to and from the West Indies which prohibited Americans from trading in any West Indian products. The purpose of this prohibition was to prevent the French from benefiting from the delivery by American merchant ships of West Indies goods in short supply in France. Since France desperately needed the assistance of the ever-growing American fleet to supplement its own infant merchant establishment, the British were not disposed to permit that practice to continue.
The treaty cut off French supplies, but it also impaired the commercial exploitation of trade with either France or Britain by American commercial interests. Unfortunately, the products grown in the West Indies included cotton, a rapidly growing cash crop in the United States. The restrictions which Jay unwittingly approved were meant to affect the cotton grown in the islands. However, treaty language actually denied America a world market for cotton, its new source of wealth.
The Constitution gave the Senate power over treaties, and Washington, ever the trustee of constitutional authority, called upon the Senate to implement its authority of “advice and consent” over the Jay Treaty. Washington sought the full involvement of the Senate to evaluate but also to revise, amend and, of equal moment, to help sell the treaty to the American public.
The Treaty caused uproar across the country for which Washington was totally unprepared. The Democrats and the pro-French generally and now even the Federalist New England merchants and traders suddenly moved upon the Senate in protest. Washington's pride and self-image were at stake. He felt his leadership slipping away.
Protest groups were formed. Numerous articles were published in the Democratic-Republican press, alleging that the Treaty had turned on America's closest friend during the Revolution, the country that followed the American Revolution with one of its own, albeit now somewhat undone. All of this pro-French sentiment was coupled with an unbridled distaste for the British and their warlike acts. Once again Washington found the sentiment rising against him. His compatriots were no longer in his cabinet nor were they available for counsel. (John Adams was Vice President, but his jealousy of Washington made him of little value.) Perceiving his isolation and the public uprising against the “pro-British” treaty, Washington strategically leaned heavily upon the Senate to crystallize public support for the treaty and to help in its final draft.
The Senate finally ratified the Jay Treaty, except for the odious section on West Indies Trade. Although it was far from being a satisfactory agreement, Washington sought its ratification to avoid a devastating war with Britain by assuring that nation of America's neutrality in their war with France. Washington had once again brought his political acumen and commanding personality to the fore. He had caused Congress and the nation to set politics aside and to seek peace. He had risked his prestige and rapport with the populace to lead the country away from the potential of armed conflict which would surely overwhelm the nation.
The Democrat-Republicans thought Washington weak, indecisive, and vain. They saw him as a general of modest strategic ability at best. They protested that Washington was anti-French, pro-British, and a monarchist. This criticism which may have been a political maneuver against the powerful “Federalist” President had little outward effect on Washington who would clearly demonstrate his strength of character and his political astuteness in his final months as President.
The first of these opportunities was Washington's Seventh Annual Address given in the Senate on December 8, 1795. The attention to the nations fight over the Jay Treaty was at its height, and he was being attacked viciously. Everyone was prepared for an address carrying a virulent attack on his enemies, coupled with a resounding defense of the Jay Treaty. Instead, Washington dwelt singularly on the gratitude which should be felt by one and all “to the Author of all good for the numerous and extraordinary blessings we enjoy.” He itemized these as General Wayne's military victories and negotiated peace with Indian tribes in Ohio. Piracy in the Mediterranean, where the Barbary pirates had raided U.S. merchant ships, had been eliminated, at least temporarily. He made brief mention of the Jay Treaty, which had been approved and amended by the Senate, stating that the West Indies Trade amendment would soon be approved by Great Britain. The resolution of conflicts with the Indians and in the Mediterranean, and with Britain, provided Washington with an opportunity “for consoling and gratifying reflections—and a time of diminishing external discord which have heretofore menaced our tranquility.” The country was not enduring the travail of war as were those on the Continent, he argued. The problems of trade were far outweighed by the benefits of neutrality, and the country was growing and prospering, exhibiting a national happiness never before equaled. He reminded his audience that the Whiskey Rebellion was behind them and that the Western Territory was now flourishing. He went on to encourage a humanitarian policy toward the Indians and concluded by urging temperate discussion of matters before Congress, proclaiming its necessity for the “peace, happiness, and welfare of the country.”
Washington had defused and disarmed the opposition. He was an executive who took upon himself the task of leading the country and Congress in the direction he had selected. The address was a brilliant, thoughtful, and persuasive effort. The tenor of public opinion, which was slowly moving his way, was being expressed in newspapers throughout the country.
The second remarkable challenge for Washington in his final year became apparent when the House of Representatives insisted that the Jay Treaty be submitted to the House for approval as well as to the Senate. They protested that they were the legislative body elected by a popular vote; the Senate was still selected by state legislators. They based their position on the constitutional provision that the House has authority to pass on appropriations. The treaty could not be law, as Congress saw it, without approval by the House and the subsequent appropriation of needed funds.
To initiate its authority in the matter, the House demanded that certain papers and memoranda associated with the evolution of the Treaty document be delivered to them for examination. Washington remained adamant. The House of Representatives would not interfere with the power of the President to make treaties with the “advice and consent” only of the Senate. The effect of this demand would be to permit the House full authority to supervise the President's activity in all matters, thus encroaching upon the powers of the executive branch. Washington would not succumb; it was the House against the President, and Washington stood his ground. Congress fully expected compromise on the part of the President, but found none. Their position was clearly in jeopardy. When a torrent of public protests appeared in defense of the Treaty, Congress retreated and approved the appropriation needed to implement the Treaty by a vote of fifty-one to forty-nine. Washington had prevailed.
The conflicts with England had barely been alleviated when the French reaction to the Jay Treaty took over center stage in American foreign policy. The French profoundly resented the Jay Treaty. They looked upon America as a traitor to their cause in their fight with England, resulting in a contentious final six months in office for Washington. The French refused to accept America's appointed Ambassador, they attacked Washington personally, they stopped and boarded American vessels loaded with goods bound for England and confiscated the cargo without any intent of repayment. Washington made peace with England only to find that France had surfaced as a war-minded adversary.
It was a conflict that would not be resolved during Washington's administration. It was also one which he could not comprehend. Nor could he comprehend why Jefferson and the Republicans could not be persuaded of the significance of France's hostility. The pressures first from Great Britain, then France, caused Washington to alter his views on neutrality and isolationism. He recommended that the country establish a navy to protect the merchant fleet and deter foreign aggression.
Americans who were blindly pro-French used the Jay Treaty as the signal to reinstitute their virulent attacks on Washington. Forged letters surfaced as they had during the Revolution, which purported evidence of Washington's desire to abandon the Revolution. He was accused of overdrawing his presidential salary, all of which drove Washington to private, emotional diatribes against the newspaper attacks against him.
Although it was a tempestuous end to Washington's long public career, he shouldered his responsibility to resolve the public threat and to absorb, with courage, the personal attacks against him.
Washington's faith in the new republic and in its survival was well expressed in his Farewell Address, which was published in September of 1796. The address first stated that he would not seek a third term as President, which set a precedent followed until Franklin Roosevelt in 1940, almost 150 years later, and at the onset of fighting a world war, ran for his third term. Succession to the office of the presidency by election was rare in the annals of history, where in fact one usually found that leaders had been despots who either died in office or were deposed. The experiment of constitutional government was thriving.
Washington noted this in his Farewell Address by congratulating the citizenry on the success of its democratic institutions. He highlighted neutrality and the importance of avoiding involvement with European conflicts. He spoke forcefully on the preservation of the union as the source and bulwark of prosperity and self-protection. Washington reiterated his great concern about political parties and the possibility of demagoguery which might result. He feared the pitting of one group against the other, with the surviving group becoming despotic, as was occurring in France. This was Washington's greatest concern for the future of the country and also the source of his greatest feelings of failure. He sensed that the country's greatest threat came from within, particularly from the pernicious influence of political parties and from regional conflicts. He spelled out this concern in the Farewell Address, but to no avail. While Washington had faith in the ability of the people to reach sound decisions, he did not believe they would function democratically through a party system where individual judgment would be controlled by manipulative self-serving party leaders. It is interesting to note that although he and Jefferson shared a common faith in the reasonableness of man, Jefferson approved the political party in a free society as the means whereby individuals might best express political thoughts.
Washington's address set the tone for neutrality in American foreign policy which was to last for a century, and he inspired nationalism over regionalism, a subject which would all too soon tear the country apart.
The speech, appreciated as it was for its content, was received with mixed emotions. Although there was great regret at the departure of their revered leader, there was recognition that a peaceful transfer of power was at hand. The public set aside its bickering with George Washington as he left office. All eyes were on him during the inauguration of John Adams, and the crowd gave Washington a tumultuous send-off when he departed. It had always been a small but vocal minority of the public who opposed Washington. For the vast majority, however, he was their beloved President, Commander-In-Chief, hero.
George Washington was a remarkable and yet a relatively uncomplicated man. He was confident, determined, and quite comfortable with himself. During his second term he displayed patience and unusual endurance, facing issues without precedent. He perceived the momentous times in which he served the nation without adopting the trappings of a political philosopher. He was the great facilitator and implementer of the ideas of a free government, of individual freedom, and of a Constitution that balanced forces. He certainly encouraged the roots of the Revolution, but he left to others to plant those roots, to perfect the Declaration of Independence and write the Constitution. But he was the one who saw to the early tillage and harvesting which was leading the war and serving as the first President. Washington gave unique dignity and prestige to both the office of the presidency and to the nation that no other could have provided at that time. He secured the authority of the presidency from undue interference from either Senate or House. He firmly established the authority of the federal government to enforce its laws in the face of the “Whiskey Rebellion.” He fended off attacks from the Jeffersonians and the pro-French. He brought dignity and prestige to the office of the presidency which would set the pattern for all who followed. He sought a cloistered environment for the country through neutrality, allowing the nation to find its own way without interference from foreign powers. He was persuaded of the evils of political influence over the free thinking individual. He asserted all of his prestige to permit the maturation of the electorate and of the government before these would come under the influence of political parties.