George Washington: Thanks, Man.

Now that I have finally bumped Don DeLillo’s Underworld off the list, I’ve got more energy for other reading. And yesterday, on the trainride out to my Super Bowl party, I finished the biography of George Washington that I’ve been working on for a while.

I have read so many books about Adams and Jefferson, that I know their particular story by heart. I’m not as familiar with the actual WAR side of things, the strategies, the Valley Forge winter, a blow-by-blow of all the battles… It’s great stuff. Really interesting. Baron von Steuben! Who wasn’t a baron! But who knew his stuff, in terms of the military – so along he comes, and he whips the rag-tag army into shape, drilling them with military discipline, and battle field maneuvers – all of which ended up paying off quite nicely.

Also, so interesting: no one knew WHAT the President should “be” like in the beginning. Is he a king? What do they call him? Congress wrangled over this for days – so long that it became a joke, and the newspapers brutally pointed out that there were more pressing concerns for the infant nation than a 5-day long debate over whether the President should be called “Your Highness” or “Mr”. John Adams, who thought the nomenclature of the President was of utmost importance, and spearheaded the long debate about it became a laughingstock (notes being passed back and forth in Congress, basically saying: “Jesus, John, this is not a big deal … Please stop!”). Adams thought the President should be referred to as, “Your Highness, The President of the United States.” (Later, when it was rumored that Adams was a secret monarchist, this innocent “Your Highness” suggestion of his would come back and bite him in the ass.) Somehow, the nonsensical debate ended, much to everyone’s relief, and they just settled on the plainer more republican title “Mr. President”.

Washington asked for lots of advice in terms of etiquette: should he not dine with private citizens? Should he hold dinners once a week and invite everyone, or just a select few? He got conflicting answers, of course – Hamilton thought he should act like a king, others thought he should behave like a regular citizen, etc. – and many of the precedents set by his administration remain traditions to this day. But it was all just trial and error in those beginning years.

Out of all of “those guys” (Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc etc) … it seems to me that George Washington had the hardest time with the reality of living a public life. It seemed to have been an enormous sacrifice for him – more of a sacrifice than with the other founding father chaps. I get the sense that John Adams missed Abigail so much that it hurt, and he missed Braintree, and he romanticized wandering through his “turnip fields” at home during his long years away … and yet I ALSO get the sense that John Adams NEEDED to be at the center of the debates, he NEEDED to be there. Any sacrifice was worth it. Abigail felt the same way, she talks about it all the time in her letters, sometimes with a positive outlook and sometimes a bit more melancholy. (There’s one letter to her husband that always makes me feel like crying. She is having a rough time being apart from him, she misses him, the separation is too great, an ocean between them … and she wonders if the generations to come will truly appreciate the sacrifices she has made in service of this country … Whenever I read that mournful letter, I wish I could pop off a postcard to her in heaven, saying: “I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU!!”)

But back to George: I get the sense that, for Washington, all of this was not as clear a choice. He was bitter from his long years of wrangling with Congress during the fighting of the actual war, he was worn out, exhausted from army life, his health broken down. The dude had dysentery like you wouldn’t believe. He wanted to go HOME. Martha, by the second term, refused to leave Mount Vernon. She was getting old, and she had had it. Washington knew that the sacrifice he made was essential – and he knew this, somehow, without losing his humility. He knew he had become a symbol of the new nation, of its unity, as uncomfortable as that seemed to make him, and that as long as he was at the helm, the nation would remain united. The new nation would make it safely through the rough waters of the late 18th century.

Factions breaking out, political intrigues, Jefferson and Hamilton (2 cabinet members) refusing to cooperate with one another, Washington trying to maintain a middle course (even though he basically swung towards the Federalist side). But through all of this – after his long long years of service, of the long Revolutionary War – he just wanted to go HOME. He wanted to be on his farm, where he could go horse-riding every day, and oversee his land, and hang out with his grandkids (many of whom lived at Mount Vernon with him.) This was where his true heart resided.

And so, one of the overriding impressions I got from this biography was that — Sorry to be all grandiose and stuff, but that this guy GAVE UP his private happiness for the public good. A public life did not suit him. He had too much homesickness, too much humility , not enough ambition for power … and yet he spent the majority of his entire life away from Mount Vernon, dedicating himself to the liberty of the colonies.

And his letters, his private correspondence … they are painful to read, at times. Especially as it became clear that he HAD to stay President for a second term. He HAD to. As much as his own concerns were calling, as much as his domestic happiness was threatened … there was no way he could say no.

He basically gave his life to the cause.

And, of course, what that really means is: George Washington gave up his life for us .

Finally, I love this: what were Washington’s last words?

“‘Tis well.”

This entry was posted in Founding Fathers and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to George Washington: Thanks, Man.

  1. peteb says:

    Sheila

    Any record of who proposed the use of “Mister President”? – it’s a wonderfully simple, and profound, nomenclature to choose for a head of state.

  2. red says:

    peteb:

    There is a record of who was on what side. I can look it up at home, and post it tomorrow. In David McCullough’s biography on John Adams, he covers the debates on this issue in depth.

  3. peteb says:

    Let’s name and shame those concerned, Sheila.

  4. red says:

    Shame them? Why? I mean, yes, in retrospect, the entire debate is absurd – but they had no way of knowing how it would look to US.

    It is funny, though – apparently one member of Congress, can’t remember who – wrote a mocking POEM about the whole thing, during a session of Congress, and passed it around to his colleagues.

    So John Adams is treating it seriously, and all the rest are basically writing limericks about how stupid it all is.

  5. peteb says:

    Hmmm.. it did sound funnier in Preview… honest..

  6. red says:

    Oh. Okay. I just added a blithering comment to my earlier comment.

  7. peteb says:

    I do think it was right to make that decision.. and to take it seriously, though.. whether anyone was right to defend a different choice so strongly could be open to question, but that’s in hindsight.. How the citizens refer to the head of state shapes that relationship over time.. it was an important consideration.. and “Mister President” was the right choice because of what it tells people about that relationship.

  8. Paul says:

    I believe that Washington has a claim to being the greatest man in history. It wasn’t because he gave up his life for us (at least you Americans) but rather because he didn’t take it to the logical extreme. He was the essential man in the revolution, but he did not conduct himself like he believed it. He crossed the Delaware, but he didn’t cross the Rubicon — and it was wide open for him to do so, with an invitation dangling by the side. I do not know of another comparable figure in history who did the same. He only took office after the power had been restricted and then he actually went home when almost everyone wanted him to stay. Contrast with any other revolutionary leader. He was a great man and will remain so long after the revisionists are forgotten

  9. red says:

    Paul –

    I believe, like you do, that his greatness mainly resides in how he GAVE UP power. Whoda thunk that one?? I didn’t really focus on that in this post, but that is one of the things that is so extraordinary – to walk away from power.

    There are some very funny quotes from Napoleon – sorry, paraphrasing – but like:

    “I do not understand this Washington. Why hasn’t he crowned himself?”

    heh heh

  10. Paul says:

    There were many great men amongst the founding fathers, but some of them would have crowned themselves. But for the existence of George Washington, the history of the US — and of the world — would have been very different.

    Paul

Comments are closed.