George Washington was a very astute man, and during his two terms as President, he was given a front row seat in the development of political parties in the new United States. Being of no party affiliation himself, he prided himself on being able to collect the relative information on any piece of legislation and then sign it or not based solely on its merits. However, not everyone in his cabinet felt the same.
In fact, the first two political parties in this country were founded on the principles and ideas of two members of Washington’s cabinet; Thomas Jefferson, his Secretary of State and Alexander Hamilton, his secretary of the Treasury. Thomas Jefferson’s followers called themselves “Republicans,” while Alexander Hamilton’s followers called themselves “Federalists.” “Jefferson believed in the right and ability of the people to rule themselves. Hamilton felt the common man was incapable of self-rule,” as explained in “The Real George Washington,” part one by Jay A. Perry and Andrew M. Allison. These two ideas lead to the development of two new newspapers in Philadelphia. The “Hamiltonians established a national newspaper called The Gazette of the United States, while the Jeffersonians founded The National Gazette.” In essence, the Republicans believed in a small limited federal government and the Federalist Party fought for a stronger Federal Government with expanded power. Although these two men had many differences in ideology and philosophy, the problems between them reached a point of no return when Hamilton pushed the idea of a national bank which would be “under a private, not a public, direction – under the guidance of individual interest, not of public policy.” Jefferson felt that the constitution did not give the federal government the right to create such a bank but Hamilton argued that “every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution.” After much wrangling, the measure passed both houses of congress.
Washington asked for written statements from his cabinet before making his decision to sign or veto the measure. He, himself, was not convinced that the creation of a bank was a right given to the federal government in the constitution. Two cabinet members opposed the measure believing it unconstitutional; those men were Thomas Jefferson and Attorney General Edmund Randolph. Two cabinet members supported the measure believing that it was in fact constitutional; Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of War, Henry Knox. After much deliberation on the merits of the measure, and upon receiving written arguments from all four men on why they held the positions they did, Washington ultimately signed the legislation to create the bank for a limited term of 20 years. Jefferson strongly felt that the creation of this national bank, even for a term of twenty years was beyond the powers as set forth by the constitution and would only serve to, “raise up a moneyed aristocracy and abandon the public to the discretion of avarice and swindlers.” While he felt that paper money might have some advantages, he felt its abuses were inevitable, and that by breaking up the measure of value it made a lottery of all private property.Subsequently, the 10th amendment to the constitution was passed ten months later which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or the people.” With the passage of the tenth amendment, the argument made by Hamilton, that any power not prohibited in the constitution was given to the federal government, could no longer be used as any power not explicitly given to the federal government was now retained by the states and the people.
Although much of the rhetoric in the new newspapers was focused on either Jefferson or Hamilton, Washington felt that the complaints were against the administration as a whole. “In condemning the administration of the government, they condemned me, for, if they thought these were measures pursued contrary to my sentiments, they must conceive me too careless to attend to them or too stupid to understand them.” Washington acknowledged that he had signed many acts of which he did not approve in all their parts, but never had he put his hand to one which he did not think eligible on the whole.
When it became clear that Jefferson and Hamilton would never agree on any system of politics, “he urged them to accommodate their differences by mutual yielding.”
“A measure of this sort would produce harmony of consequent good in our public councils, and the contrary will inevitably produce confusion and serious mischiefs. And all for what? Because mankind cannot think alike, but would adopt different means to attain the same end. For I will frankly and solemnly declare that I believe the views of both to be pure and well meant, and that experience only will decide with respect to the salutariness of the measures which are the subjects of this dispute.”
“Why, then, when some of the best citizens of the United States – Men of discernment – uniform and tried patriots – who have no sinister views to promote but are chaste in their ways of thinking and acting, are to be found some on one side and some on the other of the questions which have caused these agitations – why should either of you be so tenacious of your opinions as to make no allowance for those of the other?”
“I have a great, a sincere esteem and regard for you both and ardently wish that some line could be marked out by which both of you could walk.”
Despite Washington’ s desire to find a middle ground that his colleagues could walk, Jefferson resigned at the end of Washington’s first term in office and Hamilton resigned a year later.
The Attacks on Washington’s motives and character continued into his second term from the two opposing camps and wounded his feelings. He wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “I was no believer in the infallibility of politics or measures of any man living. . . . I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.”
He also wrote, “Until within the last year or two ago, I had no conception that parties would, or even could, go to such length as I have been witness to; nor did I believe. . .that every act of my administration would be tortured, and the grossest and most insidious misrepresentations of them made. He also indicated the opposition had a habit of, “giving one side only of a subject, and that, too in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero, a notorious defaulter, or even to a common pickpocket.”
As the end of his second term neared, Washington was adamant that he would not serve again. He knew that some wanted him to serve as a monarch did, until death, naming a successor, but that was not what he wanted for the United States. He wanted a new President to be elected while he yet lived. Instead giving a farewell address, Washington wrote his farewell address to the people of the United States which was published in September of 1796. In his letter he offers advice to the new nation on many subjects. One that he takes some time on is the dangers he saw in political parties.”
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”
“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.”
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”
“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
George Washington was a very wise and a very astute man. He saw the dangers in allowing political parties to reign uncontrolled. Yet two men he respected were unable to find common ground. Why? Because they firmly believed they were doing what was best for the new republic. Their ideologies were diametrically opposed. Where they both wrong?
Even Washington saw merits in both schools of thought. No one is ever always wrong or always right. The danger comes in inflexibility. Jefferson and Hamilton were brilliant men, yet neither was infallible. Washington himself admitted that he had probably made mistakes, but had acted in all things with the good of country as his foundation. George Washington tried to look at all sides of an issue and “He acknowledged, indeed that he had signed many acts of which he did not approve in all their parts, put never did he put his hand to one which he did not think eligible on the whole,” according to “George Washington a Biography,” by Washington Irving. Is it possible in our present time to find a man who truly puts the good of the country before the good of the party? One who is willing to acknowledge that he may not have all the answers, but who is willing to look at all sides of an issue and try to fined the common ground? Because I believe that America needs such a man right now! But, the question is, in the 21st century, does such a man exist?
they say history is not a teacher, but the words of washington are true today as never before. maybe thats why some wish to rewrite it rather than teach it.
ReplyDelete