And the Weiner is . . .

Hmmm.. I'd guess the nominees will reflect each poster's interests a little but I'll go out on a limb and say "James Madison".

I'm thinking that his influence on getting our Constitution (and subsequently, or legal system) established as was done effects every other area we touch.

Oy, this is tough, particularly when you consider that someone could've been really influential in the 1700s but now we can't remember who the heck they were.

Okay, you twisted my arm. I'm going to say Thomas Jefferson. He wrote the Declaration of Independence and was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase. If I recall correctly, he also sent Lewis & Clark out to do their thing. I'm keeping in mind an article written by Stephen Ambrose for Smithsonian magazine, wherein he states that Jefferson might be seen as having fallen short because he didn't free his slaves and was something of a racist (a paradox for a man who wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal"). I see him as flawed but the best choice.

Jefferson.

I understand your hesitation, F & J . . . and i fully intended and hoped to open one number 10 can of worms . . .

heeheeheehee

S

I say Columbus. Can't defend it now (am off to class in a bit) but should be self-explanatory.

You certainly did crack that can open, Setanta. I dunno. If we're going back to the dear old Ante-bellum times, I would choose John Adams over Jefferson. He is a sadly neglected founding father. But your question, as I understood it, was aimed at the most influential American. That would imply one whose influence is manifest even today. Lincoln? I don't know. I have to think this over. So many to choose from, so little time...

I could defend Madison, but go with Jefferson anyway. In addition to Jespah's reasons, he was the creator of the Northwest Ordinance, the first piece of legislation in the U.S. to outlaw slavery in a specific part of the country.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson insofar as you can't pin the insensitivity to slavery entirely on him. It was an unfortunate compromise in order to keep the colonies intact as states. Lincoln would be second but I really feel that Lewis and Clark would follow closely behind him.

LW has pointed out, as have others of you, that it is difficult to select a single candidate. I agree. I have two choices myself. I will give first the individual for whom i have the weakest argument--Margaret Sanger. There has not been sufficient time since she began her work to really assess the impact she has had on our society. Abigail Adams could write to John Adams that the men of the convention must not ignore the ladies in their new constitution (they did), and Amelia Bloomer could live her outre life-style, but until Sanger's pioneering work in birth control and planned parenthood, the women's movement had little chance for meaningful development. I think it not unreasonable to say that she will be better regarded and accorded more historical significane in the future, if she does not sink into obscurity in the hostile interim.

My other choice is obvious, and many might think trite. That is George Washington. I will return later to expound (and probably at too much length) on why i feel this is so, and about the extent to which a true picture of Washington is commonly unknown to Americans, and his contribution is not appreciated.

til later, okseeyahbye

S

Were i obliged to choose a single person from our history as having been most influential, i would choose George Washington. This seems an obvious choice, and rather trite, but i do feel it is justified, as i will explain at too great lenght, and i feel that most Americans simply do not know the man. For me, he is a very real person. He was a generally cheerful man, convivial, an accomplished flirt, a successful farmer (not planter, he saw that tobacco was destroying his fields, and the relationship of tobacco producers in America with their larcenous agents in London was beggaring them, and he gave it up--he also saw that slave labor was corrupt and inefficient, and wished to give that up as well), an articled and very competent surveyor, and he goes unrecognized for his military competence.

Thanks to Parson Weems (the "cannot tell a lie" incident, throwing a dollar across the Potomac, and other apocryphal tales), Washington became an unreal figure of legend to Americans. Even well-informed Americans are apt to see him in an inaccurate and unfair light, as most historians and biographers have viewed him with condescension--the image emerging being one of a not terribly bright man who nonetheless muddled through. I personally believe this is a reaction of the puny to someone of genuinely gigantic stature.

Washington was left fatherless at a very early age, and Augustus, his father, was not of much influence on him. Far more significant in his life was his brother Lawrence. In 1739, the English became involved in what was known as "the War of Jenkins Ear"--but i won't drag you into what is a fascinating and insignificant event for the trivial minded. Suffice it to say that this set the stage for an English attack on Spanish possessions by the time that war, with the name of the War of the Austrian Succession finally broke out in Europe in 1740. After England had declared war on Spain, an expedition was mounted agains Cartegena, and Lawrence Washington joined the expedition, as did many Virginians. Unlike the majority of his comrades from the Commonwealth, Lawrence survived. In honor of his commander, Admiral Vernon, Lawrence named his estate Mount Vernon.

At age 15, George was articled as a surveyor, and at age 16, was made the Commonwealth surveyor for two counties on what was then the frontier, in the Shennadoah valley. From here, he surveyed and explored hundreds of thousands of acres in what would become the western counties of Virginia, and, after 1862, West Virginia, in western Maryland and Pennsylvania, and southeast Ohio. In particular, he explored the Kanawah valley, which would the first major area of settlement immediately after the Revolution. He also laid claim to much of this land, and, although he was eventually unable to make good his claims, he nevertheless was land rich, and at the time of his death, these land claims provided the resources to make his heirs financially comfortable, and to pay, until 1832, the pensions he had arranged for his and Martha's slaves. He had early come to the decision that slavery was not only abhorrant, but wasteful from an agricultural point of view, and he was determined to emancipate his slaves, and to do so in a manner which would not harm them, nor threaten Martha after his death. He was determined to educate them, but the Burgesses, catching wind of this, hurriedly made it illegal to educate slaves. Paying a pension to the slaves was his solution. It provided for their support without the necessity of involutary servitude, and it created a situation in which they would not profit through emancipation by Martha's death. These are hardly the considerations and provisions of a not very bright man.

In 1753, the able and energetic Scot, Dinwiddie, who was then the Royal Governor of Virginia, made Washington a Major and the Adjutant of the Virginia Militia (George was then 21 years of age). It is suggested that Dinwiddie might have wished to give the Militia command to Washington, but this cannot be know to a certainty, and, in any event, political and social considerations had given that post to another, truly mediocre man. Late in that year, Dinwiddie sent George on a mission which was ostensibly diplomatic, but was actually an intelligence gathering mission. Washington was to go to the Riviere des Beoufs (Buffalo River) in what is today northeast Ohio, and confront the French, who had recently moved into the area. This George did, and although well-recieved by the French (who were frankly surprised that he had arrived without losing any party members in that time of year when winter was closing in on the wilderness), and was accorded every mark of respect as an ambassador, while being completely ignored in his insistence that they were on English lands and must remove as soon as possible.

When Washington returned, the horses of the party were suffering from the want of forage as smow now covered the ground, and they could not travel very far in a day. Washington felt it imperative to communicate with Dinwiddie as soon as possible, and so, he and his guide Christopher Gist, set out on foot for Virginia. They had a truly harrowing march to Maryland, including falling through the ice of the Monogahela river, and spending a night on an island in the river without fire or dry clothing. They were easily able to cross the river in the morning, as a hard freeze had set in overnight. After their soaking, the hiked 40 miles to a wilderness cabin Gist had constructed in what is now western Maryland, and Washington was in Williamsburg by the middle of January, 1754.

Public Television did a series on the American Revolution, and i recall an historian speaking of Washington, in that typical condescending manner which i mentioned before, as he arrived for the Second Continental Congress in the uniform of the Colonel of the Virginia Militia (a post which he eventally attained, although it is debatable whether or not it was an honor given the circumstances at the time he was promoted). Washington was already considered the first soldier among the colonists, so he was only advertising what most delegates already believed. Furthermore, this sort of behavior was not only acceptable in the 18th century, it was expected. The historian went on to retail the reasons why she considered him to be the last man who should be considered for the job. In so doing, she not only showed this typical slighting attitude so common toward Washington, but she also displayed an apparent ignorance of the qualities which he had displayed and devoloped in the crucible of the French and Indian war, and in what good stead those qualities and his experience would stand him in the trial to come.

(more to follow)

This historian spoke of Washington's debacle at Fort Necessity, and his participation in the ill-fated Braddock expedition. She also spoke of his futile efforts in protecting the frontier later in the French and Indian war. Nothing could be more short-sighted. After Washington had returned to Williamsburg, Dinwiddie sent him out again, with major portions of the Militia, to take position across the path of any French advance toward Fort Cumberland in Maryland and Valley of Virginia. He advanced to Great Meadows, and there constructed Fort Necessity. He could not have chosed a worse site for his fortification. His force was accompanied by an independent company of Royal Americans, regular troops raised in the colonies, and the Lieutenant of the that force would take no orders from Washington, whom he considered inferior in rank, because he was not a regular. This officer also insisted that his men would not work on the fortifications unless they were paid the additional two shillings per week promised them in regulations, and that any individual soldier of his command was still free to refuse. You may well imagine how well this sat with the members of the Militia, who got no extra pay, and were required to dig because they had been ordered to do so.

An indian village chieftan, known as the Half-King, whom Washington had met on his earlier expedition into the Ohio valley, had joined him (probably largely for the free provisions, and to increase his own prestige among his people). This man came to him, and reported that a French and Indian party had approached, and an advance guard was hiding in the woods nearby. Washington organized a detachment who quietly surrounded this party, and attacked in the hour just before dawn. Washington had to restrain the Half-King and his warriors from killing prisoners and mutilating bodies--and in the melee, le Sieur de Jumonville was killed. The French later described him as an ambassador, saying that Washington had murdered an ambassador. They did not explain what an ambassador was doing hiding in the woods with an armed party on what even the French acknowledged was English territory--they had their casus belli and war was on between the English and French.

The main body of the French came on, and occupied high ground within musket shot of Fort Necessity. A desultory firing was kept up on both sides, much reduced by a heavy, constant rain. The French were badly outnumbered, and were running out of ammunition, when, to their utter astonishment, Washington asked for terms. The young officer in charge of the Royal Americans had refused to fight, and was threatening to surrender separately. Washington's other officers were also counseling surrender, and his men were miserable as their trenches filled with water. The French sent in a letter with terms for Washington to sign, and in the badly flickering light of a candle, a Dutchman with them provided a less-than accurate translation. Washington signed, not knowing that he had admitted in doing so, to the murder of de Jumonville, acknowleding him as an ambassador. Hostages were taken, and the Americans marched out. George was all of 22 years of age at that time.

In 1755, with a war on, the English sent regular regiments to America, and an officer to lead them, Braddock. Most Americans are familiar with "Braddock'd Defeat," so i won't retail that story. Washington could not get command of the Virginians who acccompanied Braddock, so he had joined as a volunteer aid. He was suffering badly from dysentary at the time of the battle, but he still managed to play an active part, and, although "only a colonial" and with no official rank, he took charge of the survivors and pulled back across the river. For those who belittle his military skills, it is important to consider that a fighting withdrawl (the Virginians had kept their organization and continued to fight throughout the battle) in the face of a victorious enemy is the most difficult of military assignments. Both American and English witnesses said that after the battle, Braddock (who lingered on in agony for three days before dying) could not stand to see a red coat, and he was guarded and surrounded by Virginians in their blue coats until he finally was buried. On the 4th morning, Washington had Braddock buried with all due honors, and then the survivors of the little force (originally about 2200 men, now reduced to about 1600 or 1700) all marched over the grave. This was done to hide the location so that the Indians would not find Braddock's grave and dig it up to desecrate the remains.

Dinwiddie had no doubt of Washington's qualities, and despite this debacle, he was promoted Lt. Colonel, and, as the only truly energetic and competent high-ranking officer of the Militia, was given the job of organizing the defense of the frontiers of Virgina AND the Carolinas against the Indian raids which would inevitably come. The PBS pundit also found this effort as evidence to doubt Washington's qualities, but a thorough study of the conditions (a parsimonious Burgesses, a frontier hundreds of miles long to be defended with fewer than 1000 men, mutinous men and drunken officers) will show that a young man in his 20's would be lucky to maintain his force, let alone protect the frontier. Washington could not stop the Indians raids, but no one in American history ever has been able to do so without first destorying the tribes involved. He did provided forts which succeeding in holding out, and provided refuge to those frontier families who managed to escape the raiding parties. Additionally, the Indians raided in small parties, and never felt secure enough to mount the huge raids, including all members of the tribe migrating into the raided area, which would have been their custom. Neither the French Army nor the Canadian Army (there was a standing army in Canada before Montcalm's arrival) felt strong enough to challenge the Virginia Militia. In one of those conditions which cannot be proven, it can be pointed out that Washington's tireless efforts (he rode the circuit of the forts--more than three hundred miles--on at least two occassions) very likely prevented a much worse slaughter.

Washington also participated as the commander of the Virginians in the Forbes expedition of 1757 which took Fort Dusquense and established the post which would one day become Pittsburgh. By 1758, Washington had had enough, and he retired his commission, and returned to Mount Vernon, where he threw himself into the management of that large estate (Lawrence was dead, and George had inherited) with all the energy, intelligence and perspicacity he had shown on the frontier.

So i was mystified to know how this historian could have seen George as unqualified for the command of the Continental Army. Apart from being the only native son to have attained such rank who was available (Israel Putnam of Connecticutt held the same rank, but succeeded to the post after the war), he was the man with the most actual combat experience then available. He never again chose ground as bad as Fort Necessity; when he had to fight and scrape and claw every dribble of aid he got from the Continental Congress, it was only a reprise of his experience with the Burgesses in the 1750's; when he was obliged by defeat to withdraw his army, time and again he did so, preserving his army, as he had done with Braddock's force in 1755; when his nation was pressed on all sides, he found the forces to send to Horatio Gates, first in the New York, where Gates was credited with the victory which was actually achieved by Benedict Arnold at Saratoga--to Gates again in the Carolinas, where he frittered away his army and his opportunities, being the first man to reach safety when running away from the battlefield at Camden--to the brilliant Nathaniel Greene, who used those troops to such good advantage, that at Guilford Courthouse, Cornwallis turned his artillery on his own men as the Continentals launched a bayonet attack which shattered the Highlanders, shattered the Brigade of Guards, and threatened the English army with annihilation. Washington's record in the 1750's assured that exactly the right man for a thankless, frustrating, almost impossible job was on hand when the pipsqueaks of the Continental Congress challenged the Goliath of Great Britain in 1775.

Like Grant, Washington displayed little skill on the battlefield. Also like Grant, he had the good sense to leave the battlefield fighting to competent officers under his command--Lord Sterling, Sullivan, Greene, Arnold, Lafayette, Wayne--while retaining strategic and operational control. Like Grant, Washington was a pusher--there was always something to be done, always some way to get at his enemy, and he always felt the need to do so as quickly as possible. Unlike Grant, Washington accomplished this with the slimest of resources, with one cabal after another in the Congress bent on his downfall and replacement, against an enemy whose resources seemed limitless. French aid was essential, without doubt, but it was also inevitable, and Washington preserved an army--a very professional army by 1780, the only American army who ever seemed to prefer the bayonet to gunfire--to join in their operations. When the Americans and French attacked redoubts numbers 9 and 10 in Cornwallis' defenses at Yorktown, Alexander Hamilton's Continentals rushed rebout number 10 silently, and were in the fortification and on the English with the bayonet before the warning could be given. The French were thrown back from redoubt number 9, twice, and only got in after Americans in redoubt number 10 turned the captured guns on redoubt number 9. It was all over for Cornwallis, and it was all over for the English as well. Washington continued to preserve his army until the end of 1783, giving Adams and company the leverage necessary to get a good peace treaty--and this was perhaps the hardest part of his job in the Revolution. He kept the army together despite a mutiny which saw the entire Maryland line marching home, but turned back by Continentals who could not ignore the orders of their commander. He persevered despite the Newburgh Addresses, a near mutiny of his officers. He appeared before them spoke briefly, and then pulled out a prepared speech. In a genuine and unaffected move, he tried to move the paper about to read it, but could not, and pulled out his specatacles, apoligizing to his officers by saying that he had not only grown grey in his nation's service, but blind as well. There was not a dry eye in the house, and the officers went, if not cheerully, at least resignedly, back to their duties.

In December, 1783, Washington rode to Annapolis, where the Continental Congress was then sitting. He then quietly surrendered his commission, made brief remarks, and rode back to Mount Vernon, arriving late on Christmas eve. I know of no other man in history who stood, sword in hand as it were, victorious at the head of a hardened veteran army, in a position to dictate terms to the nation, who willingly and quietly returned his commission to the civil authorities--as incompetent as they were--and returned to private life. If for no other reason, he would stand unique in history. He was never a brilliant scholar--but he was certainly a brilliantly resourceful and persevering many. He was not a military genius--but he was a driving commander in an age of "dancing master" warfare, when European officers were rated high if they could maneuover their opponent out of position without the necessity of a messy battle. And he was certainly a man of integrity and probity whose honesty was such that a nation which mistrusted strong central government, had just endured eight years of devastating warfare to throw off the yoke of such a government, was willing to give a new constitution a try because Washington supported it. When the members of the convention were creating an executive, they looked to the President's Chair in the hall, and there sat Washington. The extraordinary powers granted our chief executive by the constitution fly in the face of all that the "founding fathers" believed about governments at the time of the convention, and is radically different than the plural executive envisioned in the "Virginia Plan"--but there sat George, no one had any doubt who our first President would be, and not a soul in the United States mistrusted the man. Conscious to the last of the power of precedent in such matters, Washington retired from public life after two terms, so as not to make the office seem to be "President for Life," so as not to annoint his Vice President as his successor. That John Adams succeeded him meant little, Adams was thoroughly capable of screwing up his opportunity, and did, serving a single term before falling victim to a "throw the bum out" movement, even within his own faction. Until FDR, no American President (except for the other Roosevelt, who failed) even considered serving more than two terms.

I vote for old George, and wish the people of the nation which has benefited so much from his many fine, and largely unknown qualities, could know his as i do--a real, flawed and ordinary man, who rose to an occassion as i know no other man or woman to have done in history.

There, i'm actually done.

Oh my!

And a new benefit of A2K -- no annoying chopping up of, ahem, LONG posts.

Really educational in the best sense of the word, Setanta. Thanks.

My tricorn is off to you, Setanta. A very convincing exegesis, indeed. And I learned a lot I had not known.

Fantastic! If I recall correctly, Washington was an admirer of Cincinnatus, who was made a dictator (or it may just have been offered to him) in ancient Rome but either refused or just didn't overstay his welcome, and returned to his home. Washington leaving office after two terms is, as I remember hearing it, his emulation of Cincinnatus's example.

One thing though, about his freeing of the slaves (and Jefferson not freeing his). Jefferson was often in debt and slaves (like it or not) were assets. Freeing them would've increased Jefferson's debts. Washington wasn't in debt (or at least, not as much). Might those be reasons why each man went the way he did on the slavery question? I don't mean the only reasons, but contributing factors?

Interesting what you say about Ms. Sanger. Agreed - but I think she needs a little more time under her belt to really be recognized. I mean, I'm 40. Assuming I survived all pregnancies, without Ms. Sanger, I'd've had how many pregnancies? Eight? Ten? Twelve? What would my family finances be like with so many children? What kinds of work decisions would be made? And child care decisions? I don't live close to my parents or my in-laws; but if I had that many children; I'd probably want to live closer to them. Etc. Pretty radical difference in my life.

You could make similar (but not as strong) claims for Salk (the polio vaccine).

Thanks, guys . . .

Very much to the point, Jespah, where, indeed would you be without the silent, and largely unknown liberation Sanger provided . . .

Jespah, the whole Cincinnatus story was a major theme of "post-war" America in the 1790's . . . but i'm at work, and haven't the time right now . . . i'll come back to that . . .

I know historians look down on Washington's marrying into money and the inference that he wanted to buy more land on the Potomac which was denied by the British government but every great American forefathers had warts -- after all, he did win the military campaign which resulted in the success of the inception of the country. Ideologically, however, I couldn't give him anywhere near a number one spot.

LW: I agree with you, Washington was politically a dreamer--but in the best sense. Like all committed revolutionaries, he beleived deeply in the vision of a perfect society. In his case, he was opposed to "faction," what we would call political parties. It was marvellous idealism, but it was not in the least pragmatic, a strange digression for so practical a man.

Jespah: Here you go, you asked for it. The early history of Rome is considered legendary. The Tuscans, no longer able to deal militarily with the Romans (actually, the Roman/Latin/Hernican alliance), hired a large band of Gauls, roughly 30,000 (women and children included, the Gauls brought the whole family to the party), and Rome was attacked, occupied (expect for the temple mount), and sacked in 390 BCE. Almost all of their records were destroyed in the conflagration. Disaffection and disease eventually dispersed the Gauls, but the damage had been done.

Titus Livius, writing roughly 2,000 years ago, lists the entries of the linen rolls (records kept by the priests--Romans made no distinctions between civic and religious ceremonies and records) which detail office holders, and he refers to earlier Roman historians, all of which are references to documents no longer available to us. He wrote a history of Rome which covered more than seven and half centuries, from the foundation of the city in April, 754 BCE to what was for him the present, the reign of Octavian, known as Caesar Augustus. He entiled his work Ab Urbe Condite, from the Foundation of the City. His first 5 books cover the legendary period. Lucius Quictius Cincinnatus was the elder member, and therefore, the head of the ancient and honorable clan of the Quinctii, a family of the class of Patres, the "fathers," i.e., the senatorial class. When his young nephew was accused of treasonable conspiracy with the Veii, a Tuscan people inhabiting a city about two days march northeast of Rome, Cincinnatus put all of his property in the city up as bond for his nephew. This was considerable, as the Quinctii were rich and powerful, and Lucius Quinctius in particular was wealthy. The accusations were true, however, and his nephew "skipped bail." True to his word, and the social code of his class, Lucius Quinctius immediately held a public auction of all of his property in the city, and turned the proceeds over to the city administration. He then retired to the only property he had remaining, a farm on the Janiculum, the hill of Rome located across the Tiber to the North.

When the Romans had thrown off Tuscan shackles, they had established a government with two "kings," the Consuls, who were elected each year. Just as there was no distinction between the civil and the religious in ceremony and records keeping, so there was no distinction between the civic and the military in routine administrative activities. A Quaestor, Praetor, Aedile or Tribune had military as well as civic duties, and the Consuls were always the commanders of armies, as well as the chief magistrates. On any occassion which necessitated both Consuls at the head of armies in the field (occurring quite often in early Roman history), the senate and any civic officers and priests left behind took care of day to day business. In an emergency, the Senate was empowered to appoint a dictator. The ideal, observed with scrupulous care until the time of Sulla in the first century BCE, was that the Dictator would serve only as long as the emergency lasted. Upon his appointment as dictator, that man would appoint a Master of Horse, to be his second in command, and summon the lictors--the public functionaries who were the ceremonial guards of the Consuls when they were in the city, and who were to carry out punishments or executions. The carried the faces, a bundle of staves, which were actually used to administer public beatings if such was ordered, and a ceremonial axe in the center of the bundle, but only if the lictor preceded a dictator. This axe symbolized the power of life and death, and no Consul had that authority, only the Senate, the People or a Dictator could pass such a sentence, so the faces was carried by the lictors without the axe when the Consuls were present.

Cincinnatus was dictator on four occassions, once for only a matter of hours. On every occassion, he surrendered his office as soon as the emergency had passed, and returned to his farm on the Janiculum. That, at any event, is the story as retailed by Titus Livius.

This became a powerful symbol for the early republicans in America, especially those who had served throughout the war as officers or NCO's. The image of the humble, virtuous Cincinnatus, of ancient and honorable lineage, with a hand on the plow, and the sword of the nation's righteous wrath in the other, was a favorite conjuring of these men. The entire Continental line had been treated badly by the Continental Congress, not just the officers; however, after the war, Washington managed a settlement with Congress which gave land west of the Blue Ridge to veterans, personally surrendering tens of thousands of acres of his own to which he had a legitimate claim. This left many disgruntled former officers, who, for whatever lip-service they paid to image of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, were not about to go into the wilderness and put their hands to the plow. They felt they had been cheated, and felt they were owed both back pay, and a service bonus, which they were being denied by an ungrateful nation. Furthermore, little understanding the credit system ingeniously designed by Alexander Hamilton, which certainly did benefit a small group of speculators who had purchased Continental scrip at bargain basement prices, but which also created a sound economic base upon which the country was rapidly building prosperity--they took the line that they were still being cheated, and that Hamilton and the Federalists were behind it all. They formed the Society of the Cincinnati to further their political ends, and they invited Washington to join, and to command them once again. They little understood the political ideals of their former commander. He was opposed to all "faction" (read, political parties), and was particularly disgusted by the cupidity of these men, whom he saw as malcontents unnecessarily sewing discontent in the body politic. He not only refused to join their organization, he publicly condemned it. The members had founded a settlement on the banks of the Ohio river, and named it Fort Washington, in his honor--they now renamed it Cincinnati. Although they made many dire threats of the consequences of his rejection, Washington never suffered at their hands, and they faded from the political view because, as he had rightly diagnosed, they were a group of malcontents. The growing prosperity of the new nation, with a seemingly unlimited supply of new land to the west, left them further and further in the past. Only a city in Ohio, named by and for them, remains as a vestige of their dreams.

OOoh.... Cool.

I adore Roman history, and definitely don't mind discussing it (I've read Tacitus and Suetonius, and a tiny bit of Josephus. I need to get to Livy but I have a large number of books in line before it. Oh, and I've read about half of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - that's a work in progress which I pick up every few years, read for a few months, and then put down again).

But I digress. We were talking early American history.

Washington is, well, he's Mr. Precedent as much as he's Mr. President. That is, being first, what he did just defined everything to come. It wasn't just the two-term thing, but also the term "First Lady", the practice of the Senate giving him a standing ovation before speaking, and I believe the annual State of the Union is his invention.

Yes, and Washington was very conscious of precedent and it's effect, although he had no crystal ball. While the government was in New York, he once attended a session of Congress (the body then being small enough that both houses could sit in the same hall). The speakers on the floor were so obviously playing to the gallery, that he left in disgust and gave up the idea. Since that time, no President has entered the halls of Congress without an invitation. Perhaps a little ashamed of his first experience, the Congress invited him to attend each year to report on the state of the Union, a very crucial subject in those early years, since the adoption of the constitution was a very close run thing.

Washington also held weekly receptions in his residence, which any lady or gentleman who could dress presentably was entitled to attend. He funded those events out of his own pocket, and so, although living well both in and out of office, he largely lived hand-to-mouth throughout his life. The practice fell off, but continued until the adminstration of Lincoln, when threats of assissination were real enough to discontinue the practice. Lincoln compensated, however, by holding a small reception each week for newsmen and foreign dignitaries, and so, the modern press conference is a lineal descendant of Washington's receptions.

While in Philadelphia, these receptions were quite the social event, and as admission was on the basis of arrival, there was a lively competition to arrive early, and arrive as the best- or among the best-dressed. Once the government was established in Washington City, this practice, although eschewed by the parsimonious New Englander Adams, and not to the taste of the reclusive Jefferson, was revived by the vivacious entertainer Dolly Madison, and, as we all know, White House dinners, involving famous artists and entertainers, remain a feature of any administration with a reasonably house-broken chief executive.

Additionally, the constitution provides for the establishment of exeuctive departments at the discretion of Congress. The original "cabinet" was set as Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Treasurer and Postmaster General. Washington, feeling the need of good legal advice, hired Randolph as his personal legal advisor, and this was eventually ratified by the establishment of an office of Attorney General by the Congress. It's hard for modern Americans to imagine a cabinet without State, Defense and Justice as the big three, but without Washington's foresight, the executive might long have languished without an Attorney General. Washington also, of course, served as the Commander in Chief, but he would take no military rank while in office, and would wear no military garb. Later, in Adams' administration, when Congress authorized the office of Lieutenant General for the first time (and the only time until that rank was confered on Grant in 1864), Washington eagerly accepted the office, and was very concerned to get his uniform in time for the wedding of his step-daughter's daughter--some biographers have seen a childish senescence in this, but, whether or not such a position is defensible, it is significant that Washington, while chief magistrate, would take no military title, and allowed no military trappings to impinge on the office.

There is much more, of course, but i run on too long as it is.