American History Hit - President George Washington

Episode Date: August 3, 2023

He was the victorious Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. As presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, he oversaw the birth of the government of the United States. But George Washington is remembered by most as the first President elect of the United States.This is the first episode of a new series on American History Hit. Every two weeks Don and an expert will explore the presidencies of the former Commanders-in-Chief of the US.To begin, Patrick Spero joins us to take us through George Washington's time in office. From his ascent to the presidency to the development of the new capital; from the Proclamation of Neutrality to the Whisky Rebellion; this is the ultimate introduction to the first president.Patrick is Executive Director of the George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon.Produced by Sophie Gee. Edited by Siobhan Dale. Senior Producer was Charlotte Long.Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free original podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world renowned historians like Dan Snow, James Holland, Mary Beard and more.Get 50% off your first 3 months with code AMERICANHISTORY. Download the app on your smart TV or in the app store or sign up at historyhit.com/subscribeYou can take part in our listener survey here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Want to explore even more history? Sign up to History Hit, where you will discover history from around the world. From the American Revolution to prehistoric Scotland, there is plenty to discover. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries with a brand new release every week, exploring everything from the ancient world to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com slash subscribe to bring the past alive. It is April 30th, 1789. The people of New York City are awakened by a military salute at sunrise.

A few hours later, at 9 a.m., church bells ring throughout the town for half an hour, while members of Congress, officials, and all of New York's most important figures gather at Federal Hall for a most momentous day in this still-young United States. At half-past 12, attention turns to a parade of 500 soldiers, arriving in the company of the one man who matters most. Disembarking from the state coach, he strides down an avenue formed of his men. This man, attired modestly in a dark brown suit with brass buttons decorated with eagles, a dress sword at his side, and silver-buckled shoes enters into Federal Hall,

emerging onto the second-floor balcony in the company of dignitaries. Facing the crowd below, he places one hand onto the ceremonial Bible and takes his oath of office. George Washington has just become the first president-elect of the United States, the jubilant crowd of Americans, cheers in approval. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire. Since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between, beauty and advantage between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid

rewards of public prosperity and felicity. Welcome to American History Hit. I'm your host, Don Wildman. Well, this is a big day for us. Today marks the first in a special series of episodes, which will, every two weeks or so, in chronological order, explore all 46 presidents of the United States from George Washington, to Joe Biden and whoever comes later, should we eventually get to him or her. Of course, it is a tall task to survey the life in times of any remarkable person, much less one who becomes president of

the United States. It's a whole lot to cover in a half an hour format. So we're focusing on the presidential years with any other discussion undertaken to illustrate how the man's past might have led to his actions in the White House. So we begin at the beginning with a man who started at all, America's first president, George Washington, father of our nation, we call him, who journeyed through a lifetime of tumultuous, creative, and military rebellion, only to find himself in the glorious, though at times, awkward position of figuring out how to be a president in a nation that never had one before. Today, I'm in the company of Patrick Spiro,

executive director of the George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon, a scholar of early American history. He has authored a number of books. Patrick was previously the director of the American Philosophical Society's Library, home to the papers of Benjamin Franklin, and a professor of history with so many accomplishments and accolades. Welcome Patrick Spiro to American History. It's great to have you. I'm thrilled to be here. I'm looking forward to this conversation. Like I just explained, this series we've embarked upon attempts to tell the story of each president by limiting our questions to the presidency itself. Quite a task when addressing George Washington, indeed, huh?

And did you say we only have 30 minutes to do this? Or eight hours, I don't care. We'll try for 30 to 40 minutes and do our best. Well, the reason I'm asking is because, you know, when I think about Washington's presidency, there are two aspects to it. It's unlike any other president where on the one hand, he's establishing the presidency. People call him the precedent president, which I think is really important. But he also, as president, has to navigate all of these crises, foreign policies, crises, debt crises. So to be able to do both of those in 30 minutes, we've got quite a task before us, Don. I'm going to just preamble here by just

saying, when I reflect on George Washington, it is exactly what you just said. It's not only that huge accomplishments were achieved, the setting up of the nation, you know, even before his presidency starts, being the president of the Constitutional Convention, but then it's all the psychology of this, the waters he has to navigate with these personalities and all of this. Everybody's sort of flying blind, trying to figure out how this is really going to work, you know, being guided by a brand new document that is untested in this world. It's incredible, really. I mean, we could sort of end the show just saying

what everybody always feels about George Washington is, wow, how did he do it? Well, in some ways, I don't know if people fully realize how much he had to do and address. And those waters he had to navigate because how do you interpret the Constitution? How do you establish the presidency? But just imagine the world that he was facing as president.

He had wars on the continent. He had a strong British presence in the Northwest. even though they were supposed to be there. He had the Spanish in the South. He had an army that was losing numerous battles to Native American groups. He had a population that was divided. He had a debt crisis that he had to confront. And he had to establish this office of president that most people feared was really just creeping monarchy. So it was just incredible how many things he had to deal with. There have been many times when there seems to be some sort of divine intervention in the American story. And right from the get go, you get a guy who is somehow capable of doing this

like no one else who ever walked the earth. You know, it just seemed like he was born for the role that he never thought he'd play, which was to do all this balancing of things that are crazily out of balance. As leader of the Constitutional Convention, summer of 1787, how much did Washington guide that process? And did he understand the role of the presidency in doing so? Was he already seeing himself in that role at all? Well, that's a lot. Well, that's a lot. That's a really great question. You know, in the Constitutional Convention itself, he presided over it, of course, and he sat very quietly, but every person attending the convention was staring there at Washington. And a lot of people have said that that has given the people in the room, the reassurance that here we're creating this new government and we're looking at the person that we trust to have leadership of it. And particularly of this new office of president, which did not exist in this form under the Articles of Confederation. So Washington did not say much in the convention itself. But he was very active in Philadelphia, going out with other members of the convention, having dinner with them, dining, a social life. And a lot of historians have thought

that this is kind of, there's some soft politicking that he may have been doing in these informal settings. But I think what he did during the convention is something that's very Washingtonian, which was exercising quiet power and restraint, which is a big part of who he was as a leader, particularly as president. He'd been through the crucible of the revolution. I mean, for sure, he had already been dealing with these issues in terms of the personalities anyway. Yeah. My favorite anecdote from the convention actually is that, like I said, he said very little during the convention until the very last day. There was a motion dealing with representation. Should each district sending people to the Congress have 30 or 40,000 members? And that's really the first time Washington stands up and opines. And historians have been trying to interpret what this meant. And some have said, well, here's Washington waiting to the very last day. And he's finally saying a little something. And the implication is that he approved of the Constitution, except for this one very minor change. So that was his way of showing his consent and approval of the document. Personally, one of the things I like to point out is that this particular issue had to do with

how democratic the legislature was going to be. And Washington actually preferred a more democratic Congress. He wanted a more representation than had been originally proposed. I love these lesser-known events. One that has always confused me is you have the constitutional convention, which ends in September 1787. How long after it have they undergone the election? I mean, when does Washington actually campaign for president or does he? Well, he does not campaign for president. And that's a really interesting thing to think about and talk about is what was Washington thinking? What were Americans thinking?

I mean, without a doubt, Washington knew that he was going to be president, although he writes these letters, you know, there's this great one to Hamilton where he says, well, I hope the electors will choose somebody else. But everybody knows it's going to be Washington. But in this era, campaigning was considered inappropriate. You didn't want to show your ambition. You didn't want to show that you wanted to go after the office that seemed to be very not Republican, not a virtuous act. So in this period of time, you kind of sat back and had other people advance your candidacy. It's technically 1789 that he's elected, but it actually takes several, several months.

And it's as they're kind of sorting out, how is this electoral college going to work? And it's a very convoluted and complicated system that they enacted in this first election. What was the national mood at the time of that election? I mean, after the revolution, then the articles, then the... the Constitution, how confident are Americans and hopeful? Were they cognizant of a type rope they were walking? If I were to describe the mood, it would be anxious and uncertain. And again, it goes back to everybody realizing how fragile the foundations of this nation were, let alone the government. The Constitution itself was an extremely unpopular document. Some historians have argued that if you

took a straight popular vote, it may have failed a popular vote. Many people worried that this was a creeping monarchy, that we're recreating this British system we'd just overthrown. And then, of course, the economy was an absolute shambles. There was rampant inflation. There was an enormous amount of debt. And then there are all these foreign policy concerns where you have this nation that has no real army, no real navy, you know, these imperial European superpowers who probably could come in and crush the country if they wanted to. So it was just incredibly anxious and uncertain. In the convention, Washington emerged as a central voice in the creation of a strong central government, as you mentioned, along with Hamilton, Franklin, all the stalwarts of the years of revolution. Jefferson is actually in France for most of this process. Washington is a firm federalist. Do you think this was a surprise to him, given his background, and where he's from geographically and spiritually?

Or had he already decided on this during the war and the run-ups? I think you're exactly right. Washington was forged through experience. And in 1775, would he have thought that something like the Constitution and this federal government would have been necessary? Probably not. But through the course of the war, through experience, he realized the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation. And even in the 1780s, there are these letters where he's outlining what he thinks needs to change. So he clearly recognized that. There's this really interesting, you know, kind of perspective on whether people are federalists or anti-federalists. And it's pretty clear that those who fought in the war, especially in the Continental Army, tended to be federalists.

And those that didn't were more inclined to be anti-federalists. Jefferson and Washington are a great example of that. Those that have been in the Army had constructed kind of this national view of what this revolution was about. They had forged connections across states. Well, somebody like Jefferson, who during the revolution had been governor of Virginia, hadn't constructed that same vision for the nation. And so I think a lot of Washington's ideas were, like you said, forged through experience during the revolution.

One big upshot of this federalist campaign is led by Hamilton and Washington to create a national bank to stabilize the economy and manage the nation's general banking. Why was this so controversial for so many and did it actually succeed? Yeah, the national bank came to represent this Jeffersonian and Washingtonian divide. So what was the situation? The states themselves had taken on an enormous amount of. debt. And those in the north had a lot more debt than those in the South. In fact, those in the South had largely been paying off their debt. And what Washington realized was that this debt posed an

existential threat to the future of the United States and its independence. Because even though these were individual states who had taken out this debt, primarily to European lenders, if, for instance, Massachusetts defaulted on their debt, that's going to reflect on the entire United States. And so what Washington and Hamilton realized is that they needed to create a national debt to assume all these debts from the state, and then they needed to create a bank that would help finance and pay off this debt on a national level. And for Washington, this was very much about securing the independence of the United States. It was about forging a union. One of the things that I think many of them thought was, look, this was a national war effort, and we needed to all pay it off.

This was a national cause. Now, for Jefferson and them, they saw this as exactly again, the creeping aristocracy that this bank was going to become for the elite way in which people could manipulate the markets and serve their self-interest. It was creating Great Britain all over again. And so this was very much about the vision and the future of the United States. The bank represented that debate. Virginia had paid off their debts. That was a richer state. You know, they were able to do that more quickly than others. I guess New York, I don't know the facts, but I suppose New York had not yet done this, and that's Hamilton's world. So one could see this as a whole bunch of, major egos, figuring out how to fix the problems of their own states, their own domains. But it really

does represent difference in the philosophy behind what this nation was going to be, how they would be united. Are they united in division or are they united because they share each other's problems? That's going to be the problem that Washington oversees that frankly continues, you know, throughout the entire length of the country's history to even to today. That's one of the things as a historian, when people talk about these are unprecedented times, I actually take a lot of reassurance in looking at the past and seeing how divided, in fact, our country has been more often than not. And I think you're absolutely right that one of the things that happened was with the revolution. It's really easy to unite an opposition to something.

So everybody was opposed to the policies of the British Empire that supported the revolution. And it's only when they got into power that these divisions started to emerge. And one of the things that Washington said, and he says it in his farewell address, he says it to Jefferson and Hamilton, person while he's trying to maintain his cabinet. He's like, your differences are not that far apart. Our core principles are the same. And I think one of the things that Washington really believed is, look, there's policy. You've got to adopt the best policy you think for the nation. And then you've got to move on. And what he didn't realize is that there's going to be this loyal opposition surrounding Jefferson and Madison where he might enact something like the bank and say, we've done it.

Let's just move on. And they're going to stick on this bank and say, we need to tear down this bank. and eventually, you know, during Madison's term, the bank expires and goes away and creates a problem for Madison, who then, after the war of 1812, creates the second national bank, realizing how essential it was to the country. Yeah, only to be phased down by Andrew Jackson later. Exactly. Yeah, yeah. And so when people today talk about tearing down institutions, it's really fascinating to see how much instability there really has been in our democracy. There was a national bank created. It was expired, it was recreated. It was then, as you said, with Jackson removed, which led to one of the first great depressions of the country. In growing up, if I may editorialize for a moment,

one learns that you have to kind of live with a process and not a result. I've always wondered if George Washington was kind of of the same mindset and all of these framers, frankly, because having sat in that hot room in Philadelphia in 1787, they could not have possibly imagined that they figured it all out. It had to have been full of holes. Of course it was. They had to fix them very soon after with the Bill of Rights and so forth.

But I imagine that those guys were much more flexible in their thinking, certainly George Washington, than we think of them as being now, especially these originalists who are so set in what was the construction of this country. For these guys, it had to have been an experiment and a creative one at that. You know, Washington addresses that in his farewell address as well, implying that, look, we're going to have to keep adjusting as we learn. That's Washington, experience, through experience. And he makes that clear that's got to be rational. It's got to be through experience. It's got to be deliberative. but things do have to change to reflect the realities of an evolving, changing world.

One of my favorite Washington lines, and it's written before the Constitutional Convention, it's to Henry Knox, and they're talking about whether or not there's a need for the constitutional convention. And Washington says the people must feel before they will see. Hence it is this form of government is so slow. And so to get at your point on, one of the aspects of Washington is his patience. He's known since 1780 for the need to reform, but he also realizes that even though he sees it, he has to wait for other people to also experience and see it and come to the same conclusion as him. Frankly, it's such a horror show for so many. It would thrill me that if within my lifetime there was a constitutional convention because it would be such an exciting process of figuring out, you know, where we stand together or not.

And anyway, I just think that that was part of the idea behind this country. Well, you know, Don, I got to be honest, I don't know how a constitutional convention would go. That would be a fascinating experiment, yeah. I'll be back with more American history after this short break. I'm Tristan Hughes, host of the ancients from History Hit, where twice a week, every week, we delve into our ancient past. I'm joined by leading experts, academics, and authors who share incredible stories from our distant history

and shine a light on some of antiquities' great questions. Was the Oracle of Delphi really able to see into the future? What can be discovered from lost civilizations, And was King Arthur actually real? You can expect all of this and more from the ancient song history hit wherever you get your podcasts. Let's talk about something that's going to become a major discussion in this country, much less during George Washington's times.

His position on slavery, being a Virginia planter, of course, he relies on this enslaved labor force, and he has a large one, most of which came to him through marriage to Martha Custis. And just to fill in the blanks for anyone there, Martha was previously married to someone named Custis, along with her into this new marriage or remarriage to George Washington comes that estate and many, many enslaved people. But Washington, we are told by historians had misgivings about the institution, was torn by the practice. Not torn enough to let them go, of course, but he called slavery a political and moral evil, while he was the president who signed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. I mean, this is how crazy this time is. You have these incredibly contradictory ideas.

within this one man, never mind the institution itself. So, Don, one of the things you mentioned Martha, and here's a little fun fact, that her first husbands, the name of their plantation, was the White House. That's strange, isn't it? Yeah. So Washington and slavery is a really challenging question, and I think you outlined it perfectly, because his thinking does evolve on the practice, particularly after the American Revolution, but in many respects, his actions don't.

He does not emancipate enslaved people during his life. lifetime. He owns enslaved people throughout his life. There were over 300 enslaved people here at Mount Vernon during his lifetime. But the revolution does make him think more about what liberty means. He at first opposes having free blacks fight in the Continental Army, but he changes his mind. And, you know, he has the first integrated army and the only one, I believe, until the Korean War. Now, after the American Revolution, he is thinking about ways in which he himself and maybe through his model might find a way to not have to rely on enslaved labor on plantations like his. He is hoping to develop, you know, he has these various schemes.

He's in close correspondence with the Marquis de Lafayette. Lafayette is a fervent advocate for abolition and is really, I think, pushing Washington to live the creed of the revolution. And Washington is receptive to these ideas. Now, as president, as you mentioned, he assigned the Fugitive Slave Act. He also had enslaved people at the White House. And as president, he didn't want to push the issue, I think, because he feared what it would do to the union.

You know, there are Quaker petitions that are circulating, really kind of advocating for abolition. And he doesn't really like these. He thinks that they're causing, you know, problems that at a moment when the union is just trying to form and this is maybe going to create divisions, also sign a act on the slave trade, which kind of limits the ways in which American merchant ships can be engaged in the international slave trade. So again, I think how you summarized it is exactly right, where his thinking on slavery does change, particularly after the revolution. But his actions in office, in public life, do not do much to address slavery.

However, his final act in his will is to emancipate his enslaved people when Martha dies. And I believe this is a major public act. I mean, he's very cautious of what he's doing. And he makes clear in his will that this has to be respected by his executors. and he's the most famous man in the United States, the world. And this type of act, I think he knows, should get a lot of attention and may be a model for others to follow. Now, the truth is, it's not widely known.

Richard Allen, who is the founder of a three black AME church in Philadelphia, gives us eulogy, which really pulls out the fact that Washington had this clause in his will. And that eulogy is not reproduced. I mean, it's produced in some northern states, but otherwise it's largely suppressed. and other eulogies are the ones that kind of reign supreme. So, you know, I think it's a really complicated issue, as you said, Don. It's a thorny, thorny issue. And I've always wondered, in my own way, was it a justification for how the Southerners felt about secession? You know, how much that played in. I've really never heard much about it, you know, how the speeches that were made.

I mean, it had to have figured into at least their defense, let alone their logic. But moving on. So one of the more awkward episodes that crops up in his presidential years is the French Revolution, which starts in the last years of the 1700s. It presents a brand new U.S. with a very difficult choice. Can you explain those events and how it confronted George Washington especially? I mean, given his relationship with Lafayette. Yeah, this is the major foreign policy crisis that he confronts. It's both complicated and very simple.

So the simple story is the French following the American footsteps, they declare themselves independent. They go to war with Great Britain and Spain, these two monarchical powers versus France, and Washington has to figure out who do I want to side with, if at all. And he decides for neutrality. Now, the more complicated part of this is how this division between France and their revolution in Great Britain also deeply divided and affected American politics and society. Because for Washington, the decision was ultimately one about real politic. What is the best thing for the nation? And neutrality is the clear answer.

In fact, even Jefferson, who was this great support of the French Revolution, says we need to just stay out of a war. But for Americans, ideologically, we have to support our sister republic. They're following in our footsteps. They supported us during the American Revolution. And at stake for them was, you know, what does our country represent? Are we really going to not support them by doing that kind of support? at Great Britain, this monarchical power we just overthrew. And, you know, it spurs an incredible debate and division within American society. And then, you know, the kind of crazy part of

story is that the French government sent their first ambassador, Edmund Jinné, in 1793. And he arrives in Charleston, South Carolina. This is a clear case of a foreign nation trying to influence American politics, you know, interfere with inner workings of American government. And Jenae arrives in Charleston and he has this tour all the way up to Philadelphia where the capital is. And thousands of people are coming out to support him. And he arrives in Philadelphia. And he really basically tells Washington, you have to support France. And if you don't support France, I'm going to organize Americans to undermine your policy.

I'm going to go directly to them. And eventually, you know, Jefferson loves Jene at first. But they have this falling out and they have to remove them. But it is the first, you know, major policy crisis that also in some ways, foments partisan activity because all these societies form around Jeney and they say active even after Jene leaves and most of them become Jeffersonian bodies. It's an issue that divides his cabinet. I feel like we should be citing, you know, the musical Hamilton as we do this because all of these things are now footnoted by those numbers in the second act. Jefferson is Washington's Secretary of State.

Alexander Hamilton is Treasury. Jefferson forms the Jeffersonian Republic's Hamilton. He's the federalists, as we mentioned. Jefferson is the more persuasive voice in this for me, because he's been living in France throughout the entire constitutional convention. He is the one, even in the Hamilton musical, you know, he speaks up for our feelings for France. I mean, here's a revolution that's happening basically for the same reason that we've had a revolution, liberty and justice for all, you know, and anti-monarchical. And you have to believe that Washington was sitting there just, oh, my God, the anxiety must have been unbearable. He's fought an entire. war over these subjects. And now he's having to take a bird's eye view of it and make that decision

completely apart from those feelings. Yeah, there's no doubt at the beginning of the French Revolution, Washington's heart was with it. Lafayette sent him the key to the Bastille, which he displayed at Mount Vernon. And, you know, his inclination was to support the French to the extent he could. But like you said, he also had to extract himself and say, what does this nation need? And it's pretty clear that at that moment, there is no way the United States could have afforded to fight a war. One of the other things that's feeding into his decision on neutrality is the fact that just a couple years earlier, Arthur St. Clair and the U.S. Army had been absolutely annihilated in the Ohio River Valley in a war against Native Americans. And so he didn't have an army. And when you have to

think about how can the United States survive, it's got to stay out of these affairs. Because if it sticks its neck out there. And we see that in a couple of decades. There is a war with Great Britain, and they seize the capital. Within his own cabinet, I mean, so much of this is a crucible of what happens in American politics later on. You've got Jefferson, his secretary of state, Hamilton is treasury. Jefferson forms the Jeffersonian Republicans, and Hamilton is the Federalists, of course. Even though he's their leader, a man who named him to their positions, he can't support either side, of course, although he is a federalist. He has a big problem with political parties, doesn't he? No, he does. And for him, the idea of a party represents corruption and self-interest.

You create a party because you're just trying to serve you and those that supports you's interest. It's about getting power, not exercising judgment. It's all about power and pursuit of power. And that's why parties exist and are competing. And, you know, Washington, again, his decisions on the bank, I believe are less ideological than Hamilton's. They're really about what does the nation need? And then he wants to move on. He's not naive where he doesn't think people will disagree on every issue. And I think even in this farewell address, he intimates that.

But it's the permanency of parties that he opposes. He basically thinks, look, this is a democracy. There's a policy question. We're going to have disagreements. Eventually through deliberation will come to the best solution. Maybe not everybody will agree, but we'll move on. What he wasn't prepared for is this kind of loyal opposition that's permanent. Was this a time when presidents and their cabinets really dealt with things year-round?

What was the season of this sort of stuff? Did business get conducted the way we're familiar with it or not? So the legislature comes and goes. And so there's only a certain amount of business they can do there. And Washington does return to Mount Vernon regularly. Jefferson returns to Monticello frequently. In fact, you know, there's this joke that Jefferson tried to retire or leave the secretary state, Washington convinced him, and then Jefferson purposely planned his schedule so that he was

out of Philadelphia when Hamilton was in it and vice versa, you know, trying to avoid it. You know, one of the things that comes up is, look, the business of government never ends. So Washington was at Mount Vernon when crisis around the French Revolution develops, and he basically says, I've got to take some of these actions without the legislature, because if I don't, then nothing will get done, and that's a danger too. And so he actually returns from Mount Vernon, you know, sooner than expected to Philadelphia, calls his cabinet or corresponds to this cabinet about these issues. So it never ends for Washington. But there is a less is more scenario here.

And I think it applies even today. You'd be hard pressed to find Americans who know what the schedule of Congress is, but much less the Supreme Court. That's the machinery of how the government works and how politicians are reacting to each other. The noise of American politics is so much about media, sort of imposing this year-round busyness, 24-hour news, cycle thing on it. And it's a simpler process than we give it credit for. That would have been much more evident back then. One of the things Washington had to deal with is part of this partisan politics that he wasn't expecting was the creation of an opposition press. And that causes him great stress. And when I think about today and look back at Washington, there's so much that resonates because there was a

partisan press that formed during his administration and that really he is not prepared for that. It causes him great deals of anxiety. And he complains about it. It doesn't do anything about it. But we know with Adams what that leads to with the Alien Sedition Act, you know. His dealing with the Native American tribes seemed like the perfect representation of George Washington's equivocation. One hand, he was known to be empathetic towards Native tribes. He never advocated for outright seizure of lands, unlike later U.S. presidents,

but he also went about gaining control of plenty of these lands for himself. He saw it as necessary to American growth that indigenous peoples be dispossessed. How have historians come to terms with this outlook? And how much did it lay the groundwork for everything that occurred afterwards? Yeah, Don, that's a great question. And the truth is that Washington's experience with Native Americans really, I think, as you said, embodies the experience that the United States government has had with Native Americans and Native Americans have had with United States government in the sense that Washington fought alongside and against Native Americans in every war that he fought. And there are many different Native American

groups. There is no single Native American entity. There are all these different nations. And each one of those nations is going to have a different relationship, a different history, a different culture. And Washington, before the American Revolution, and again, I think this is where the revolution and also assuming power kind of changes who he is. So before the American Revolution, he is this wild speculator in Western land. He believes, as you said, that the future rests in the West. whoever controls the Ohio River Valley and then the Mississippi, that's where all the fertile land is. That is how this nation is going to thrive and prosper. Part of it is absolutely based on expansion.

But then as president, you know, he wants to maintain peace and stability in part because as I mentioned, you know, America can't afford to fight any wars. They had fought a war in the Ohio and really the army was annihilated. And so first treaty signed under the Constitution is with the Creek Nation in the South. And Washington, Jefferson, and Knox are all signers. Their signatures on the bottom of that treaty. And he's trying to maintain stability and peace within the United States and also with Native American nations. He treats Native American nations as independent.

He's establishing treaties with them. But as you mentioned, you know, there is this crush of American settlers who, like Washington before the revolution, saw the future in the West. And that is going to be the challenge for generations going forward and that we still are confronting today. I mean, it's all laced with this idea that they were not quite as human as the rest of us. And therefore, you know, judgments will be made accordingly. I promised broad strokes in this conversation. And I'm afraid that's what we're doing here. But trying our best with eight years worth of this man's life and his accomplishments. When Washington's first term comes to an end, he is actually eager to.

to move on. But no sooner has he envisioned sitting down in his own house and sleeping in his own bed, but they come to him and draft him for re-election. Poor guy, he just wants to go home. How does it get convinced to stick around for a second term? That's where Madison, Hamilton, they all come to him. And in fact, he drafted a farewell address and said, you can't leave. And I think the reason that they didn't want him to leave was precisely what we were talking about before, that the nation was dividing along party lines. And it wasn't just Washington. A lot of people were worried about what this partisanship would mean for democracy and whether it would ultimately tear the country apart. There are people that are talking, north is going to divide from south, east from west.

There are going to be four different unions on the continent. And what everybody still saw was that Washington was the glue that could hold them together. And so he reluctantly signs up for a second term. Knowing that he is the only solution to this problem, basically. I mean, all the die is cast on the divisions in this country, isn't it? Right from the get-go. Absolutely. And the thing that guides Washington throughout this.

period is that idea of union because he knows how fragile it is and how imperative it is that this union is established during his presidency and is strong enough so that he can hand it off. Was he cognizant of the philosophical backbone of this idea? Was it necessary to have such a large union of differing states in order to accomplish something larger? That was really in the forefront of his mind, eh? Yes, what he saw was the power of this union. And what he saw was the power of the differences within the United States. In fact, what I like to think about is Washington wanted the United States to be diverse. He saw the North as this mercantile engine. It would have industry and trade. The South would be agrarian. You needed those two together to work. And the West would provide all of this great

food stuff. It was the breadbasket of the United States, but how was it going to get it out? Well, through the East. And the East was going to provide all of the manufactured good that the West saw. And this is something that he articulates that we are stronger. together and we need each other in each one of our differences to become a whole. And he wanted to make money off of a canal running to the Northwest Territories for goodness sake. Exactly. The compromise of 1790, which we haven't talked about, but was where the federal government assumed the debt and the capital was placed in what is today Washington, D.C. You know, Hamilton had to give up and give D.C. to the Southerners and the Southerners had to give up their debt thing and allow the national

government to assume it. What nobody points out is the person who wasn't in the room to evoke Hamilton was Washington, and he won this compromise. He didn't compromise on anything. He got both of what he wanted, and what he really wanted was the Capitol in the Potomac, not just to be a center for government, but also because he saw this as going to be this great commercial center because it's going to tap into the Ohio. And for a long time, he'd always thought that Ohio was the future of the country, as we were talking about earlier. Tell me about his farewell address. We have baked into that speech, now infamously, his idea of simplicity, you know, the need for simplicity, the need to keep things simple and not get entangled up in foreign tanglements and so forth. What distinguishes that

speech for you as a goodbye? I think it is the embodiment of Washingtonian principles and ideas. When you read the whole thing, it's this wonderful mix of idealism, principles, and also real politic, as you'd mentioned, especially with foreign policy. For the nation, he emphasizes union. He emphasizes the bonds that connect us together. He emphasizes the bonds that connect us together. He emphasizes how partisanship can divide us and not allow us to see our better selves and see all the ways in which we have commonality. They emphasize difference in division. So he argues against permanent parties. But he also says, look, we also have to be realistic about what nations are. That's self-interest, that nations are like people and we're all guided by self-interest. And so we should treat nations like

people. We should be magnanimous with them. We should treat them with justice and fairness. We should enter into treaties, but we should hesitate with making permanent commitments because the world is going to change. And we don't want to be bound by treaties that last in perpetuity because we don't know what the future is going to hold. And so I think there are lessons in there that continue to resonate today. And I think we could do 40 minutes just dissecting the farewell address and what it could tell us today. I've always thought that the real takeaway of George Washington is something that nobody can seem to touch on effectively enough. And I've fallen short here today in questioning you is his humanity. I remember in third grade, I sat there and stared up at a painting of George Washington, a copy of a painting of George Washington.

And he was literally in the clouds. There was a famous image. He's in the clouds. Just his head is floating above. For most of that year, I remember wondering, what is all that weird stuff at the bottom of George Washington's face? only to realize later in my years that it was clouds, that that was the idea of putting this guy on such a pedestal as he was a saint, he was a god. And therefore, the ideals that he represented and the accomplishments of this nation were held in that same stead. And so that no longer seems to be the most effective way to think about George Washington, in my mind.

It's the humanity of the man and the fact that he was willing to doubt himself and figure it out and experiment and push and push this whole idea of doing things he didn't necessarily adhere to, his own life, but had to take the higher road constantly. I think this country was built by people who were willing to question themselves, and then it was attempted to be torn down by people who weren't. That's sort of how it's gone for me in general. How about you? Don, that's a great point. And I think Washington maybe himself would be surprised at what he had turned into by the time you were in elementary school because I think one of the defining elements of Washington is his humanity, but also his humility. In that farewell address, he says, I've made mistakes. I made errors. We all will. His humility where he could have been, he could have been a dictator,

but he chose not to. There are these debates. What's the relationship between the president and the Senate? And he often defer us to the legislature. He does go before the Senate. So he has humility. And that is also something that I think he would be surprised at how he'd become this statue and not a human person. I think you're absolutely right, Don. A nobolicist for that matter. A very big one. It's extraordinary to think of it. And yet it does serve a point. You know, I get the purpose behind it, and it has worked out pretty well, you know, in terms of preserving this country. I understand it. It's just that I think in appreciating George Washington, it's more important nowadays to sort of move towards the humanity of the man rather than his iconic achievements. Patrick Spiro, it's been great talking.

If listeners care to hear more from you, I recommend your books. Frontier Rebels, the fight for independence in the American West, Frontier Country, the politics of war in early Pennsylvania, and the American Revolution Reborn. New Perspectives for the 21st Century. Or just visit the Mount Vernon website to find out more regarding the Washington Library. Thanks, Patrick. Great. Thank you, Dawn. Thank you for joining us on another episode of American History Hit. Please hit like and follow wherever you get your podcasts and feel free to leave a glowing review.

We'll be examining every presidency in America's history with a new episode every two weeks. If you have any ideas for episodes on different subjects, we'd love to hear from you. Send us an email, and we promised to you. consider it at a h at history hit.com. That's a.a.h at historyhead.com. See you next time.