In episode nine of the Founding Fathers' Legacy Series, Former Washington DC Mayor Sharon Pratt continues her exploration of America's first president, George Washington. She speaks with historical writer David O. Stewart about Washington's persona and political rise, as well as his experience leading an army.
Check out David O. Stewart's book here: https://davidostewart.com/books/george-washington-the-political-rise-of-americas-founding-father/
Check out David O. Stewart's book here: https://davidostewart.com/books/george-washington-the-political-rise-of-americas-founding-father/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:04):
I'm Sharon Pratt. Great to haveall of you back here. I'm the
founding director of IPPH, the Instituteof Politics, Policy and History housed at
the University of the District of Columbia, and our mission rediscovering the history of
Washington, d C. And tothat end, we have been talking about
the three founding fathers pivotal to bringingthe capital along the banks of the Potomac,
(00:29):
pivotal to bringing the capital to theSouth. They are James Madison,
Thomas Jefferson, and the one we'retalking about today, George Washington, after
whom that capital was named. We'revery lucky today to have an extraordinary writer,
historian David O. Stewart, whohas written non fiction historical narratives as
(00:54):
well as fictional historical narratives. Todaywe talk with him about our very first
president, George Washington. David O. Stewart has a definitive work called The
Political Rise of America's Founding Father,George Washington. He talks to us about
George Washington as a political personality.Wonderful to have you with us, David
(01:19):
Stewart. George Washington, it's stillsomewhat an elusive figure. I think in
American history. And what is fascinatingto me is that you present him as
a political personality. Now, Iknow, anybody who gets elected, much
(01:40):
less elected twice is a political personality. Yet rarely do people think of him
as a political personality. You seehim that way completely, and that's what
interested me. You know, hewas such a dominant force in our national
(02:00):
life for twenty years, our firstformative twenty years, and he was elected
four times to very important jobs ascommander in chief of the army, as
head of the Constitutional Convention, aspresident, and that's impressive. But he
was elected unanimously every time. Andyou know, you just don't do that.
(02:23):
Get that with box tops. Youknow, that shows some skills,
some understanding of positioning, of howto present yourself and what the situation requires.
And he was and this is mythesis, as a young man,
he was kind of inept as apolitical actor. He was impetuous, he
(02:44):
was full of himself, frankly,and he had some bad experiences through the
French and Indian War. And whenhe got out of public life for seventeen
years or out of that sort oflife, he sort of went to school
and tried to figure out how tobe a politician. He served in the
(03:07):
House of Burgesses for seventeen years thelegislature in the Virginia, which is longer
than he was a soldier. Heserved on the Fairfax County Court, which
had some judicial responsibilities but was principallythe working of local government. You know.
They they built the roads, theycollected the taxes, they were they
(03:29):
nominated all the people for local jobs. They were the operating entity of the
county. And it was just anincredible graduate education in how to operate as
a political figure, how to getpeople to do things, how to figure
out what needed to be done inways to get it done. And he
(03:54):
got very good at it. Andthat to me is it is a great
story, and much better story thanwe get in you know, a lot
of school presentations that you know.He was just you know, tall and
brave and so terribly Yeah. Well, well, as I said when in
(04:17):
the book he didn't actually tell lies, but there were quite a few times
he didn't. He didn't disclose thetruth. Yeah. Well, but then
John Adams, I mean, everybodyI guess of that period had to pretend
that they were not politically ambitious.There was bad taste, bad form,
(04:39):
and of course they didn't even campaignthen directly that said Adams, Jefferson,
Madison, all of them were involved. None of them ever got a unanimous
vote and anything. Poor John Adamswas like it he win anything. So
is this is just that he wasa stute at identifying how to be a
(05:04):
winner or was he eager? Asyou know, I was inclined to believe
before chatting and learning about your works, he was driven to be a leader.
I do think that he was drivento be a leader. And I
don't know if always is that thesame as a politician, I don't know.
(05:27):
I guess so he wanted to leavehis mark on his time. Yeah,
and that was very important to him. And he was very ambitious.
You know, he married the richestwidow in Virginia. He built himself a
really large plantation to establish significance,and he climbed in local and colonial government.
(05:51):
And then when the trouble arose withBritain, he took a leadership role
right from the start. It wasvery very important to him and he cared
about that. He believed that thecolonists should break free of Britain. So
he set out to become the leaderand you're right, he had to say
(06:15):
things in public. You know,oh, I'm not equal to this job.
You know, please overlook my mistakesand accept that they are just mistakes
of the head and not of theheart. But that's what everybody said back
then. You can read the royalgovernors when they took office in Virginia,
they said the same thing. Andof course, well the colonial politicians did
(06:42):
too. So you observe the conventionsof your time. But I think everybody
knew that he was ambitious. Youknow, he shows up at the First
Continent on Congress when it looks like, definitely we're going to fight Britain,
We're already fighting in Bunker Hill,has happened, and he wears his militia
(07:02):
uniform. Now that's not subtle,you know, that's saying I'm ready to
serve. I'm here. He wasthe only guy in the room wearing a
uniform. And you know, itstruck me as kind of it might be
off putting, but I don't thinkit was. I think it reassured people
(07:23):
that he was ready. He hada sense, and he had a wonderful
presentation in personal manner. You know, the talent, you know, you
know this as well as I doof listening to people, of hearing them,
having them feel that you hear them. They need to know that,
(07:44):
and he was good. He alsonever spoke idly. He was actually frustrated
people greatly by not taking a positionuntil he was sure what he really thought.
And you know, you don't everread about George Washington having to walk
back something he said just never happened. Yeah, no, I do think
(08:11):
of just reading about him. Oneof his great gifts was that he listened,
and he was to the manner born. I mean, he had a
little tougher start than the others,and not the education of the others.
And certainly, as you point out, he was a very ambitious man,
but so were they all, youknow, ambitious they were, but he
(08:33):
had I think that's how he wasable to keep, don't you think,
the Continental Army together with no food, often, no money, no shoes,
just to by listening, by beinga part of them, by them
feeling a camaraderie with him. Yes, that was all part of it,
(08:54):
you know, as a military leader. It also helped that he was crazy
brave, and that's important and bothmilitarily and politically. It doesn't hurt when
you're six foot three. He dominatedevery room he entered just by standing there.
He always looked great. He wasvery fussy about his clothes, so
(09:20):
his presentation was always excellent. Hisimpatience with the British. Okay, so
this is a country. We're nota country. We're a colony, several
colonies here, and almost everyone isan offspring of the British. Very few
people are not of British descent.And suddenly you decide you're going to take
(09:41):
on the most vulnerable navy in theworld. Rarely do we do anything in
America where it's not involved with thefinances the economics of it. And he
I gathered, as did many ofthe planters, stay in debt, dealing
with the British, who set theprices in terms of cost of grain,
(10:03):
how your product was sold. Youjust were constantly in a deficit or somewhat
deficit situation. Is that an accuraterepresentation? And was that, in your
opinion a major impetus for George Washington? Growing impatient with a British rule.
He resented the British merchants, whohe thought took advantage of him. But
(10:30):
after he married Martha, he actuallyhad access to pretty good capital and used
it. He bought land, hebought slaves, and he built up his
plantation. And I think the realresentment of the British for him came from
his experience in the French and IndianWar, where he felt completely to use
(10:52):
a modern phrase, disrespected, thatthey did not value his judgments. He
felt he understood fighting in the forestway better than they did. You know,
they'd never fought in the forest.And you know, the British had
officers had a trick they would do. They all spoke French, so they
would speak French to each other.In that way, he wouldn't know what
(11:15):
they were saying, and it wasjust one more way to sort of stick
their finger in his eye and say, you know, you don't make it
here, you don't rate. AndI think he had a longstanding resentment that
when the issues crystallized over the taxesafter the French and Indian War, he
(11:39):
was fertile ground. He was readyto pick the fight in terms of the
decision to declare independence. Who doyou perceive as the way I think McCullough
presents it, Adams was probably pushingthe hardest. How do you see it?
You know Washington was dealing with thearmy principally, he was also having
(12:03):
to deal with I mean, hismilitary service was completely political. He was
dealing with all the local officials,the governors, everybody. And I think
he did support independence from the veryfirst. There's a letter he wrote in
seventeen sixty nine that's seven years beforethe declaration where he basically says we need
(12:30):
to go to war. And thatwas his attitude, and that meant you'd
have to become independent. When youthink of it, he didn't have a
consolidated military. He had an aggregateof state militias. That correct, there
(12:54):
were some federal troops that they allhad state affiliations, so you have to
they've been Yeah, they've been raisedby their governors. All the supplies came
through governors, came through mayors,came through local councils. He wrote his
correspondence, I don't know, eightten hours a day, and it was
(13:15):
mostly to other Americans, trying toget them to support things he needed supported.
Well. I know the Congress oftencame up short, more often than
not, came up short in termsof providing resource, pay etc. But
you know, I should have thoughtabout it. But I can't imagine having
(13:37):
to deal with all of those,I mean thirteen different entities in order to
keep it together, thirteen different setsof egos and power structures and so forth.
You would have to be a veryskilled political personality to deal with that.
That's true. And you know hehad only moral suasion to use with
(13:58):
these other people. He had noforce. Congress had no money. There
were no national taxes, so allthe money had to come from the states.
So it was a balancing act ina very difficult one. And in
terms of his political ambition, doyou truly think he was reluctant one to
(14:24):
serve at the convention for the Constitutionor and do you think he was truly
disinclined to service president. I thinkwhen he went to the convention he knew
that if they succeeded in writing aconstitution, he was going to have to
(14:48):
be the next first president. Hewas too smart not to know that,
so he was resigned to it.I certainly think he had mixed feelings.
He knew it would be a verydifficult job, and he also knew he
wouldn't be back Abount Vernon much.And he really did like being at Mount
Vernon, and you know, sohe had some mixed feelings, but he
(15:16):
sure understood that being the first Russianwas a big deal, right because you
had to know that it was goingto be a hornet's nest to walk into
that position that was basically undefined.And he also knew human nature enough to
know that, as Lyndon Johnson say, what can be chicken salad today can
(15:41):
be chicken tomorrow, you know,And that's the life of politics. He
had to know. And he wasthin skinned too, wasn't he He hated
criticism. He hated it, andto be honest, one of his least
admirable qualities was I never found aninstance where he said I was wrong.
(16:06):
It just didn't come easily to him. So one of the things that we
discovered too as we go through thisprocess about these three founding fathers, was
that George Washington had a big visionabout the Capitol. I don't know that
he really did, and he didappreciate what Pilon fond, who sounded like
(16:29):
he was a lot of work,but he had. He did have a
big vision, unlike Thomas Jefferson,and to the extent that we still have,
we did end up with a fewgrand avenues and you know, some
majesty to this city that was nothing. Would you not say that you can
(16:51):
attribute that in large measure to GeorgeWashington. Oh completely. I mean the
first decade of instruction was all GeorgeWashington. And he was a hands on
guy. Anybody who worked with himwould tell you on the plantation it was
(17:12):
very hands on and he would actuallydo some of the work himself to show
how it had to be done correctly. And he made sure the people who
were in charge, the commissioners,were people he trusted would do what he
told them to. And yes,he believed there needed to be some stature
(17:33):
in it. There needed to besome forgive the term grandiosity, some sense
of self in the national capital.And it's an interesting thing because Jefferson and
Adams had been to London, inParis and Amsterdam, they had been to
that world capitals, and Washington,you know, never left the country except
(17:59):
to go to Arbados. So hehadn't seen those big cities. He hadn't
seen what empires built for themselves,but he understood the classical ideals, which
was very important to the Americans.And that's what he wanted, was,
you know, luckily something that lookedlike wrong. No, it is amazing,
(18:22):
isn't it That he never left thecountry and yet he had this vision
that the others well, I imagineAdams appreciated it. I don't know,
but I know Jefferson was, ifanything, a thorn in his side,
and certainly a thorn in from thosewho write about P. L. R.
Font that you know that he foundhim very disingenuous. But he wasn't
alone in that perspective of Jefferson.Jefferson had his own esthetic requirements. Yeah,
(18:52):
So on this issue that you know, in many ways, while George
Washington clearly had a vision of thisChesapeake region being a gateway to the West,
it was also the institution of slaverythat had so much to do with
these three planters, along with others, especially from Virginia, wanting to bring
(19:15):
the capital to the south. Andon this issue, you're a little critical
of George washing it because he knewit was wrong, he thought about it
being wrong. But Elisa, hewas very slow to get there, but
he got there at least with hislast will and testament, unlike certainly Thomas
Jefferson. Yeah, slavery issue isa tough one. With all of them.
(19:38):
I've written about too many of themnot to appreciate that. And with
Washington his first forty years, hejust seems blind to the issue as general.
When he has African American soldiers whoare suffering and dying for his freedom,
it changes him. He understands,and it's still a process, but
(20:03):
he understands that ultimately that he hasbeen part of a crime, and he
spends the last ten years of hislife trying to get himself personally out of
being part of the slave economy.It's very hard to do. For an
odd reason, a lot of theslaves at Mount Vernon are actually owned by
(20:29):
Martha's first husband's estate, and Washingtoncan't just free them. He has to
guarantee their value to the legates,who are Martha's grandchildren, his step grandchildren,
and he doesn't have the money.He doesn't have the cash, so
(20:52):
ultimately he can only free his ownslaves, which he does on his death.
He can't help but wish at somelevel that he had shown on that
pivotal issue, he had shown moreleadership. No. I was actually surprised
to discover to what extent was sucha central issue to even settling on the
(21:15):
location of the capitol and how itput the Union at risk over this issue.
Yeah, the Northerners really hated thewhole idea of having to come into
slave country for the national government,and Hamilton in particular was very resentful about
that. Well, because Washington wasgood at connecting with people, because Washington
(21:42):
made himself available to his troops andothers, that that was part of his
leadership's quality. That that probably allowedhim, as you suggested, to appreciate
the humanity of his black soldiers alongwith other soldiers, and probably hastened his
decision around this issue of enslavement ina way. Jefferson, although he had
(22:07):
children, didn't seem to effect him. Yeah, I mean Madison also he
understood intellectually when he was eighteen thatslavery was a crime, and he never
did anything about it and his wholelife. So that's almost more awkward.
(22:33):
Washington was a man of action,a hardheaded guy, and once he persuaded
him of something, he knew hehad to do something about it. So
he did try. Do you thinkhe came up. Well, he did
something at least which I'm certain hadto have an impact upon some of the
arguments and moral persuasion in years tocome. But sort of would you say
(23:02):
that he appropriately lose large among thefounding fathers of our nation? Absolutely,
you know, he was the manfor twenty years if he wanted to get
something done, and James Madison figuredthis out. If he wanted anything to
get done, he just needed toget Washington to agree to it, and
(23:26):
then it would happen because everybody elsewould fall into bline. You know,
he had won the war. Now, there's lots of people who complain about
his generalship, but the fact ishe won, and then he established a
government and a constitution that's held upfor a lot of years. It's got
(23:51):
aches and pains, but it's heldup. And those were amazing achievements.
And the other others of the pantheon, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton were remarkable
people and we should honor them.But Washington's number one. He is number
(24:15):
one. And the fact that theseother men, who were extremely well educated,
you know, top colleges, alsoambitious and arrogant, and yet they
seemingly, whatever their ambition, whatevertheir point of view, seemed to defer
or at least accommodate the wishes ofGeorge Washington. You know, I don't
(24:42):
mean to be glib, but youknow, you don't tug on the superman's
cave. He was the guy,and taking on Washington was just a bad
idea, and his career he actuallythese are small events. People don't notice.
When people crossed him, he paidthem back and he was pretty good
(25:07):
at it, so, you know, it just and his leadership was excellent.
They couldn't fool themselves that they coulddo a better job. Would we
have won the war with Great Britainhad we not had a George Washington?
(25:27):
We had no other general or seniormilitary figure who could have done what he
did who was visible now would wanthave e merged? You know? Would
(25:48):
it could have? Should it?You just can't be sure about that,
you know. Nathaniel Green was infact an excellent general, an implausible one,
but an excellent There were others oftalent, But to combine the military
(26:08):
the abilities he had with the politicalskills, which I still think were paramount,
I don't think there was anybody inWashington's league. And finally, as
president, as we sort of haveour own issues in the twenty first century,
we had sort of a vacant notionor a blank slate, so to
(26:33):
speak, of what a president meant. And yet he brought us some definition
of how a president should act,how he should make himself available. He
pulled together a cabinet of extremely brightpeople. Only other person who was so
audacious in that way was a Lincolnin terms of getting people with who were
(26:55):
better trained, better educated, andthen leaving office. I loved that song
in the musical Hamilton or that,you know, back and forth with King
George the Third? Can you dothat? Yes? I didn't know you
could do that. I mean towalk away from power as he did.
And his example has basically sustained ourcountry. Would you not say for all
(27:21):
these years that his example of whata leader should be, how a leader
should act, and his deference tothe rule of law. I agree completely.
He showed us what a president couldbe. I always quote David McCullough,
(27:41):
wonderful historian, when he was asked, why do we have so many
books about so few presidents? Youknow, just everything's washed in our Lincoln
Roosevelt, he said, well,we like to read about extraordinary presidents,
and there have been so few,and you know, Washington gave us the
(28:07):
model someone with integrity, someone withgravitas, someone thoughtful, someone caring,
someone decisive, and someone with vision. He had a vision of a continental
nation, of the United States ofAmerica being a great power at a time
(28:30):
when we were a Rinki Denk operation. So he really put us on a
road that I think was extraordinary,and we were just so fortunate that he
was there at the right time.Absolutely well, I so appreciate this conversation
(28:53):
and your insights. We were doingthis because we want to talk about the
three founding fathers who brought about capital, but it's nice to also go back
and reflect on the character and strengthof all of these founding fathers, but
particularly this one, particularly in thesetimes, it's good to remember how we
(29:15):
began as a nation. Thank youvery much, David Stewart. You have
been terrific. You provide a veryunique and I think overlooked insight of our
first president, George Washington. Yes, we remember him as the great general,
the great leader, but he wasalso very much a very astute political
(29:36):
personality, and it was probably thosepolitical skills that allowed him to win the
Revolutionary War and to keep the countrytogether at its inception. Thank you.
So much. Thanks Lot, It'smy pleasure. This episode was edited by
(30:00):
Bewoff Rockland, Roosevelt Heine, andLisa Shudy of Two Squared Media Productions.
Special thanks to Folk Diversity for ensuringpurposeful conversations when reflecting on our complex history
and basking strategies for engaging our stakeholdercommunity. Thanks as well to Joy Ford
(30:25):
Austen, Jody Samuda, and AmyAnthony at the Institute of Politics, Policy
and History. We are grateful tothe Kellogg Foundation for their generous support of
this founding father's Legacy series. Besure to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts.
I'm Sharon Pratt. Great to haveall of you back here. I'm the
founding director of IPPH, the Instituteof Politics, Policy and History housed at
the University of the District of Columbia, and our mission rediscovering the history of
Washington, d C. And tothat end, we have been talking about
the three founding fathers pivotal to bringingthe capital along the banks of the Potomac,
(00:29):
pivotal to bringing the capital to theSouth. They are James Madison,
Thomas Jefferson, and the one we'retalking about today, George Washington, after
whom that capital was named. We'revery lucky today to have an extraordinary writer,
historian David O. Stewart, whohas written non fiction historical narratives as
(00:54):
well as fictional historical narratives. Todaywe talk with him about our very first
president, George Washington. David O. Stewart has a definitive work called The
Political Rise of America's Founding Father,George Washington. He talks to us about
George Washington as a political personality.Wonderful to have you with us, David
(01:19):
Stewart. George Washington, it's stillsomewhat an elusive figure. I think in
American history. And what is fascinatingto me is that you present him as
a political personality. Now, Iknow, anybody who gets elected, much
(01:40):
less elected twice is a political personality. Yet rarely do people think of him
as a political personality. You seehim that way completely, and that's what
interested me. You know, hewas such a dominant force in our national
(02:00):
life for twenty years, our firstformative twenty years, and he was elected
four times to very important jobs ascommander in chief of the army, as
head of the Constitutional Convention, aspresident, and that's impressive. But he
was elected unanimously every time. Andyou know, you just don't do that.
(02:23):
Get that with box tops. Youknow, that shows some skills,
some understanding of positioning, of howto present yourself and what the situation requires.
And he was and this is mythesis, as a young man,
he was kind of inept as apolitical actor. He was impetuous, he
(02:44):
was full of himself, frankly,and he had some bad experiences through the
French and Indian War. And whenhe got out of public life for seventeen
years or out of that sort oflife, he sort of went to school
and tried to figure out how tobe a politician. He served in the
(03:07):
House of Burgesses for seventeen years thelegislature in the Virginia, which is longer
than he was a soldier. Heserved on the Fairfax County Court, which
had some judicial responsibilities but was principallythe working of local government. You know.
They they built the roads, theycollected the taxes, they were they
(03:29):
nominated all the people for local jobs. They were the operating entity of the
county. And it was just anincredible graduate education in how to operate as
a political figure, how to getpeople to do things, how to figure
out what needed to be done inways to get it done. And he
(03:54):
got very good at it. Andthat to me is it is a great
story, and much better story thanwe get in you know, a lot
of school presentations that you know.He was just you know, tall and
brave and so terribly Yeah. Well, well, as I said when in
(04:17):
the book he didn't actually tell lies, but there were quite a few times
he didn't. He didn't disclose thetruth. Yeah. Well, but then
John Adams, I mean, everybodyI guess of that period had to pretend
that they were not politically ambitious.There was bad taste, bad form,
(04:39):
and of course they didn't even campaignthen directly that said Adams, Jefferson,
Madison, all of them were involved. None of them ever got a unanimous
vote and anything. Poor John Adamswas like it he win anything. So
is this is just that he wasa stute at identifying how to be a
(05:04):
winner or was he eager? Asyou know, I was inclined to believe
before chatting and learning about your works, he was driven to be a leader.
I do think that he was drivento be a leader. And I
don't know if always is that thesame as a politician, I don't know.
(05:27):
I guess so he wanted to leavehis mark on his time. Yeah,
and that was very important to him. And he was very ambitious.
You know, he married the richestwidow in Virginia. He built himself a
really large plantation to establish significance,and he climbed in local and colonial government.
(05:51):
And then when the trouble arose withBritain, he took a leadership role
right from the start. It wasvery very important to him and he cared
about that. He believed that thecolonists should break free of Britain. So
he set out to become the leaderand you're right, he had to say
(06:15):
things in public. You know,oh, I'm not equal to this job.
You know, please overlook my mistakesand accept that they are just mistakes
of the head and not of theheart. But that's what everybody said back
then. You can read the royalgovernors when they took office in Virginia,
they said the same thing. Andof course, well the colonial politicians did
(06:42):
too. So you observe the conventionsof your time. But I think everybody
knew that he was ambitious. Youknow, he shows up at the First
Continent on Congress when it looks like, definitely we're going to fight Britain,
We're already fighting in Bunker Hill,has happened, and he wears his militia
(07:02):
uniform. Now that's not subtle,you know, that's saying I'm ready to
serve. I'm here. He wasthe only guy in the room wearing a
uniform. And you know, itstruck me as kind of it might be
off putting, but I don't thinkit was. I think it reassured people
(07:23):
that he was ready. He hada sense, and he had a wonderful
presentation in personal manner. You know, the talent, you know, you
know this as well as I doof listening to people, of hearing them,
having them feel that you hear them. They need to know that,
(07:44):
and he was good. He alsonever spoke idly. He was actually frustrated
people greatly by not taking a positionuntil he was sure what he really thought.
And you know, you don't everread about George Washington having to walk
back something he said just never happened. Yeah, no, I do think
(08:11):
of just reading about him. Oneof his great gifts was that he listened,
and he was to the manner born. I mean, he had a
little tougher start than the others,and not the education of the others.
And certainly, as you point out, he was a very ambitious man,
but so were they all, youknow, ambitious they were, but he
(08:33):
had I think that's how he wasable to keep, don't you think,
the Continental Army together with no food, often, no money, no shoes,
just to by listening, by beinga part of them, by them
feeling a camaraderie with him. Yes, that was all part of it,
(08:54):
you know, as a military leader. It also helped that he was crazy
brave, and that's important and bothmilitarily and politically. It doesn't hurt when
you're six foot three. He dominatedevery room he entered just by standing there.
He always looked great. He wasvery fussy about his clothes, so
(09:20):
his presentation was always excellent. Hisimpatience with the British. Okay, so
this is a country. We're nota country. We're a colony, several
colonies here, and almost everyone isan offspring of the British. Very few
people are not of British descent.And suddenly you decide you're going to take
(09:41):
on the most vulnerable navy in theworld. Rarely do we do anything in
America where it's not involved with thefinances the economics of it. And he
I gathered, as did many ofthe planters, stay in debt, dealing
with the British, who set theprices in terms of cost of grain,
(10:03):
how your product was sold. Youjust were constantly in a deficit or somewhat
deficit situation. Is that an accuraterepresentation? And was that, in your
opinion a major impetus for George Washington? Growing impatient with a British rule.
He resented the British merchants, whohe thought took advantage of him. But
(10:30):
after he married Martha, he actuallyhad access to pretty good capital and used
it. He bought land, hebought slaves, and he built up his
plantation. And I think the realresentment of the British for him came from
his experience in the French and IndianWar, where he felt completely to use
(10:52):
a modern phrase, disrespected, thatthey did not value his judgments. He
felt he understood fighting in the forestway better than they did. You know,
they'd never fought in the forest.And you know, the British had
officers had a trick they would do. They all spoke French, so they
would speak French to each other.In that way, he wouldn't know what
(11:15):
they were saying, and it wasjust one more way to sort of stick
their finger in his eye and say, you know, you don't make it
here, you don't rate. AndI think he had a longstanding resentment that
when the issues crystallized over the taxesafter the French and Indian War, he
(11:39):
was fertile ground. He was readyto pick the fight in terms of the
decision to declare independence. Who doyou perceive as the way I think McCullough
presents it, Adams was probably pushingthe hardest. How do you see it?
You know Washington was dealing with thearmy principally, he was also having
(12:03):
to deal with I mean, hismilitary service was completely political. He was
dealing with all the local officials,the governors, everybody. And I think
he did support independence from the veryfirst. There's a letter he wrote in
seventeen sixty nine that's seven years beforethe declaration where he basically says we need
(12:30):
to go to war. And thatwas his attitude, and that meant you'd
have to become independent. When youthink of it, he didn't have a
consolidated military. He had an aggregateof state militias. That correct, there
(12:54):
were some federal troops that they allhad state affiliations, so you have to
they've been Yeah, they've been raisedby their governors. All the supplies came
through governors, came through mayors,came through local councils. He wrote his
correspondence, I don't know, eightten hours a day, and it was
(13:15):
mostly to other Americans, trying toget them to support things he needed supported.
Well. I know the Congress oftencame up short, more often than
not, came up short in termsof providing resource, pay etc. But
you know, I should have thoughtabout it. But I can't imagine having
(13:37):
to deal with all of those,I mean thirteen different entities in order to
keep it together, thirteen different setsof egos and power structures and so forth.
You would have to be a veryskilled political personality to deal with that.
That's true. And you know hehad only moral suasion to use with
(13:58):
these other people. He had noforce. Congress had no money. There
were no national taxes, so allthe money had to come from the states.
So it was a balancing act ina very difficult one. And in
terms of his political ambition, doyou truly think he was reluctant one to
(14:24):
serve at the convention for the Constitutionor and do you think he was truly
disinclined to service president. I thinkwhen he went to the convention he knew
that if they succeeded in writing aconstitution, he was going to have to
(14:48):
be the next first president. Hewas too smart not to know that,
so he was resigned to it.I certainly think he had mixed feelings.
He knew it would be a verydifficult job, and he also knew he
wouldn't be back Abount Vernon much.And he really did like being at Mount
Vernon, and you know, sohe had some mixed feelings, but he
(15:16):
sure understood that being the first Russianwas a big deal, right because you
had to know that it was goingto be a hornet's nest to walk into
that position that was basically undefined.And he also knew human nature enough to
know that, as Lyndon Johnson say, what can be chicken salad today can
(15:41):
be chicken tomorrow, you know,And that's the life of politics. He
had to know. And he wasthin skinned too, wasn't he He hated
criticism. He hated it, andto be honest, one of his least
admirable qualities was I never found aninstance where he said I was wrong.
(16:06):
It just didn't come easily to him. So one of the things that we
discovered too as we go through thisprocess about these three founding fathers, was
that George Washington had a big visionabout the Capitol. I don't know that
he really did, and he didappreciate what Pilon fond, who sounded like
(16:29):
he was a lot of work,but he had. He did have a
big vision, unlike Thomas Jefferson,and to the extent that we still have,
we did end up with a fewgrand avenues and you know, some
majesty to this city that was nothing. Would you not say that you can
(16:51):
attribute that in large measure to GeorgeWashington. Oh completely. I mean the
first decade of instruction was all GeorgeWashington. And he was a hands on
guy. Anybody who worked with himwould tell you on the plantation it was
(17:12):
very hands on and he would actuallydo some of the work himself to show
how it had to be done correctly. And he made sure the people who
were in charge, the commissioners,were people he trusted would do what he
told them to. And yes,he believed there needed to be some stature
(17:33):
in it. There needed to besome forgive the term grandiosity, some sense
of self in the national capital.And it's an interesting thing because Jefferson and
Adams had been to London, inParis and Amsterdam, they had been to
that world capitals, and Washington,you know, never left the country except
(17:59):
to go to Arbados. So hehadn't seen those big cities. He hadn't
seen what empires built for themselves,but he understood the classical ideals, which
was very important to the Americans.And that's what he wanted, was,
you know, luckily something that lookedlike wrong. No, it is amazing,
(18:22):
isn't it That he never left thecountry and yet he had this vision
that the others well, I imagineAdams appreciated it. I don't know,
but I know Jefferson was, ifanything, a thorn in his side,
and certainly a thorn in from thosewho write about P. L. R.
Font that you know that he foundhim very disingenuous. But he wasn't
alone in that perspective of Jefferson.Jefferson had his own esthetic requirements. Yeah,
(18:52):
So on this issue that you know, in many ways, while George
Washington clearly had a vision of thisChesapeake region being a gateway to the West,
it was also the institution of slaverythat had so much to do with
these three planters, along with others, especially from Virginia, wanting to bring
(19:15):
the capital to the south. Andon this issue, you're a little critical
of George washing it because he knewit was wrong, he thought about it
being wrong. But Elisa, hewas very slow to get there, but
he got there at least with hislast will and testament, unlike certainly Thomas
Jefferson. Yeah, slavery issue isa tough one. With all of them.
(19:38):
I've written about too many of themnot to appreciate that. And with
Washington his first forty years, hejust seems blind to the issue as general.
When he has African American soldiers whoare suffering and dying for his freedom,
it changes him. He understands,and it's still a process, but
(20:03):
he understands that ultimately that he hasbeen part of a crime, and he
spends the last ten years of hislife trying to get himself personally out of
being part of the slave economy.It's very hard to do. For an
odd reason, a lot of theslaves at Mount Vernon are actually owned by
(20:29):
Martha's first husband's estate, and Washingtoncan't just free them. He has to
guarantee their value to the legates,who are Martha's grandchildren, his step grandchildren,
and he doesn't have the money.He doesn't have the cash, so
(20:52):
ultimately he can only free his ownslaves, which he does on his death.
He can't help but wish at somelevel that he had shown on that
pivotal issue, he had shown moreleadership. No. I was actually surprised
to discover to what extent was sucha central issue to even settling on the
(21:15):
location of the capitol and how itput the Union at risk over this issue.
Yeah, the Northerners really hated thewhole idea of having to come into
slave country for the national government,and Hamilton in particular was very resentful about
that. Well, because Washington wasgood at connecting with people, because Washington
(21:42):
made himself available to his troops andothers, that that was part of his
leadership's quality. That that probably allowedhim, as you suggested, to appreciate
the humanity of his black soldiers alongwith other soldiers, and probably hastened his
decision around this issue of enslavement ina way. Jefferson, although he had
(22:07):
children, didn't seem to effect him. Yeah, I mean Madison also he
understood intellectually when he was eighteen thatslavery was a crime, and he never
did anything about it and his wholelife. So that's almost more awkward.
(22:33):
Washington was a man of action,a hardheaded guy, and once he persuaded
him of something, he knew hehad to do something about it. So
he did try. Do you thinkhe came up. Well, he did
something at least which I'm certain hadto have an impact upon some of the
arguments and moral persuasion in years tocome. But sort of would you say
(23:02):
that he appropriately lose large among thefounding fathers of our nation? Absolutely,
you know, he was the manfor twenty years if he wanted to get
something done, and James Madison figuredthis out. If he wanted anything to
get done, he just needed toget Washington to agree to it, and
(23:26):
then it would happen because everybody elsewould fall into bline. You know,
he had won the war. Now, there's lots of people who complain about
his generalship, but the fact ishe won, and then he established a
government and a constitution that's held upfor a lot of years. It's got
(23:51):
aches and pains, but it's heldup. And those were amazing achievements.
And the other others of the pantheon, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton were remarkable
people and we should honor them.But Washington's number one. He is number
(24:15):
one. And the fact that theseother men, who were extremely well educated,
you know, top colleges, alsoambitious and arrogant, and yet they
seemingly, whatever their ambition, whatevertheir point of view, seemed to defer
or at least accommodate the wishes ofGeorge Washington. You know, I don't
(24:42):
mean to be glib, but youknow, you don't tug on the superman's
cave. He was the guy,and taking on Washington was just a bad
idea, and his career he actuallythese are small events. People don't notice.
When people crossed him, he paidthem back and he was pretty good
(25:07):
at it, so, you know, it just and his leadership was excellent.
They couldn't fool themselves that they coulddo a better job. Would we
have won the war with Great Britainhad we not had a George Washington?
(25:27):
We had no other general or seniormilitary figure who could have done what he
did who was visible now would wanthave e merged? You know? Would
(25:48):
it could have? Should it?You just can't be sure about that,
you know. Nathaniel Green was infact an excellent general, an implausible one,
but an excellent There were others oftalent, But to combine the military
(26:08):
the abilities he had with the politicalskills, which I still think were paramount,
I don't think there was anybody inWashington's league. And finally, as
president, as we sort of haveour own issues in the twenty first century,
we had sort of a vacant notionor a blank slate, so to
(26:33):
speak, of what a president meant. And yet he brought us some definition
of how a president should act,how he should make himself available. He
pulled together a cabinet of extremely brightpeople. Only other person who was so
audacious in that way was a Lincolnin terms of getting people with who were
(26:55):
better trained, better educated, andthen leaving office. I loved that song
in the musical Hamilton or that,you know, back and forth with King
George the Third? Can you dothat? Yes? I didn't know you
could do that. I mean towalk away from power as he did.
And his example has basically sustained ourcountry. Would you not say for all
(27:21):
these years that his example of whata leader should be, how a leader
should act, and his deference tothe rule of law. I agree completely.
He showed us what a president couldbe. I always quote David McCullough,
(27:41):
wonderful historian, when he was asked, why do we have so many
books about so few presidents? Youknow, just everything's washed in our Lincoln
Roosevelt, he said, well,we like to read about extraordinary presidents,
and there have been so few,and you know, Washington gave us the
(28:07):
model someone with integrity, someone withgravitas, someone thoughtful, someone caring,
someone decisive, and someone with vision. He had a vision of a continental
nation, of the United States ofAmerica being a great power at a time
(28:30):
when we were a Rinki Denk operation. So he really put us on a
road that I think was extraordinary,and we were just so fortunate that he
was there at the right time.Absolutely well, I so appreciate this conversation
(28:53):
and your insights. We were doingthis because we want to talk about the
three founding fathers who brought about capital, but it's nice to also go back
and reflect on the character and strengthof all of these founding fathers, but
particularly this one, particularly in thesetimes, it's good to remember how we
(29:15):
began as a nation. Thank youvery much, David Stewart. You have
been terrific. You provide a veryunique and I think overlooked insight of our
first president, George Washington. Yes, we remember him as the great general,
the great leader, but he wasalso very much a very astute political
(29:36):
personality, and it was probably thosepolitical skills that allowed him to win the
Revolutionary War and to keep the countrytogether at its inception. Thank you.
So much. Thanks Lot, It'smy pleasure. This episode was edited by
(30:00):
Bewoff Rockland, Roosevelt Heine, andLisa Shudy of Two Squared Media Productions.
Special thanks to Folk Diversity for ensuringpurposeful conversations when reflecting on our complex history
and basking strategies for engaging our stakeholdercommunity. Thanks as well to Joy Ford
(30:25):
Austen, Jody Samuda, and AmyAnthony at the Institute of Politics, Policy
and History. We are grateful tothe Kellogg Foundation for their generous support of
this founding father's Legacy series. Besure to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!