jasonrest wrote:I imagine the new question is... does all the good they've done outweigh the bad?
In the case of Washington, i would say that the good he did his nation certainly outweighs his status as a slave owner, and his personal flaws, such as, for example, his obsession with assuring that his employees, white or black, slave or free, worked hard, and worked "from sun to sun."
Apart from having inherited slaves and a system he was powerless to alter, and apart from small flaws such as a bad temper with those he considered lazy or malingering, Washington was refreshingly free of noticeable character flaws. He was a man obsessed with probity, as well, which lead him into dilemmas such as recognizing the evils of slavery, and yet feeling obliged to observe the spirit of the last testament of Daniel Parke Custis, and therefore preserving the property of his wife, Martha Dandridge Custis Washington, and in turn preserving that property for sake of her children, and their children, as was enjoined in that testament.
On the larger, national stage, he was, as Thomas Flexner has described him, "the indispensable man." (I recommend the one volume abridged version of Flexner's biography of Washington, originally published in four volumes.) Washington was also, as far as i know (and that's pretty far), unique in history. When at Washington's funeral, Henry Lee described him as "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen," he was not indulging hyperbole, nor was it mere panegyric. Washington had, by the mid-years of the Revolution, secured the complete confidence and faith of the people, including of the men of the Continental line, and almost all of their officers (save those of high rank, whose ambitions were frustrated by Washington's presence). The unique act which Washington committed was when, shortly before Christmas, 1783, he rode into Annapolis, Maryland, where the Continental Congress was then meeting, and surrendered his commission to them, before riding home as a private citizen, and for official purposes, no more than a private citizen. I know of no other military leader who, victorious at the head of his army, with the complete confidence of his army, and of the people of the nation, surrendered all of his power to a civil authority to retire to private life. (The closest one might come to this would have been Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, and as he lived in the legendary period of Roman history--although he certainly was a real man and not a character--and as the circumstances were substantially different, i continue to consider Washington unique for that reason.)
Washington's contribution to the nation extends far beyond this, however. He was a crucial factor in the nature of the powers of the executive as it was created at the constitutional convention, because each day the delegates saw him presiding at the front of the room, and as there was no doubt that Washington would be the choice of the people as the first executive magistrate, he was always in their minds when they created the office of President. It can reasonably be argued that Washington's character is responsible for the broad and significant powers which were granted to the Executive either directly or by inference in our constitution, because he was the ultimate trustworthy and capable man of his times. I don't think the formula has failed us, either, for as much as partisan sentiments have lead people to complain of the "imperial" powers exercised by this or that President.
Finally, Washington was extremely conscious of the precedents he would set as the nation's first President. For example, while the capital was still at New York, he decided to attend a session of the Congress (still small enough that both the House and the Senate could occupy the same hall), but was so disgusted by the behavior of the gallery (he hated being stared at, and considered it grossly rude to speak of someone in their presence while staring at them), and was disgusted by how the Congressmen on the floor had so obviously begun to "play" to audience after he entered. He never repeated the experiment, unless invited to attend upon the Congress by both houses (the "state of the union" report which the President makes is mandated by the constitution). Since that time, although the constitution is mute on the subject, the President never attends a session of the Congress unless invited to do so by the two houses, and usually only does so for the state of the union address.
This is a small matter, and Washington was careful of other matters of precedent. Even though he was almost embarrassingly eager to fill the office of Lieutenant General after he had left the office of President, while in office, and although the constitutionally mandated Commander in Chief, he was careful never to appear in public in uniform, nor to appear at any time "at the head of the troops" in the character of an officer. He felt it important that the military and the civil authority be clearly separated, and that the neither the military dictate to the government, nor the government to take on a military character.
Probably the greatest and most effective precedent which he set was in retiring after two terms. He did not wish to die in office, and to seem to ratify the succession of the Vice President by that means, so as to avoid the notion that the office of President was hereditary, and that the President would informally choose his own successor. Although John Adams did succeed him, he only lasted one term, and until Theodore Roosevelt ran (unsuccessfully) for President in 1912, no other President or former President attempted to serve more than two terms. It was not until Franklin Roosevelt was elected for the third time in 1940, that the precedent was broken. Shortly thereafter, in 1951, the XXIInd Amendment was ratitified, setting a term limit to the Presidency, and making the precedent of Washington a part of constitutional law.
I'll come back later to look at Jefferson (ugh) and Jackson--the Girl is anxious to use the computer.
