The First SOTU

It was - as you hopefully guessed - delivered by George Washington.

- Click here for the text.

For comparison's sake with the one recently delivered, here are a few facts about it:

It was:

- delivered on January 8, 1790.
- given as a speech to a joint session on Congress.
- given at the opening of the second session of the 1st Congress.
- the shortest: 1,083
- delivered at a 20.4 education level.

Give recent attention to gun rights, I found this part interesting:

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

The bearing of arms must be disciplined, and - as I read it - there should be a unique source of these arms. I'm not up on the history of that era as it pertains to arms, so I'm not clear at the moment about what that's all about. He does mention this in a section dealing with how the common defense is best provided for - so it seems connected to militias.

As far as other requests, keeping in mind that he has been president a year and he is in a position to make practical requests about items that Congress could provide him that would help him do his job, here's what he asked for:

- means to deal with "certain hostile tribes of Indians."

- executive positions - adequately compensated - that would assist " our intercourse with other nations."

- "Various considerations also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of citizens should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization."

- "Uniformity in the currency, weights, and measures of the United States."

- "the expediency of giving effectual encouragement as well to the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them at home."

- " . . . facilitating the intercourse between the distant parts of our country by a due attention to the post-office and post-roads."

- "the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

And there's this bit I want to highlight separately because it suggest that Washington was open to the possibility of establishing a national university at least in part to assist citizens in governing themselves.

To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.

Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature.

This might be worth exploring in class. Some of these issue seem similar to those we deal with today.

From History.com: This Day in History: First U.S. presidential election

A very different affair than what's going on now.

- Click here for the link.

On this day in 1789, America’s first presidential election is held. Voters cast ballots to choose state electors; only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. As expected, George Washington won the election and was sworn into office on April 30, 1789.

As it did in 1789, the United States still uses the Electoral College system, established by the U.S. Constitution, which today gives all American citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote for electors, who in turn vote for the president. The president and vice president are the only elected federal officials chosen by the Electoral College instead of by direct popular vote.

 For more on the election:

- Wikipedia: United States presidential election, 1788–89.
- David Leip's Atlas of Presidential Elections.

From History.com: This day in history: George Washington Resigns as Commander in Chief

OK, so this isn't this day in history, it's yesterday in history, but whatever. I like using this episode in a few different places in class to ficus on the problematic nature of executive power. The story goes that one of the reasons that George Washington was trusted with the executive power was because he had refused the opportunity to become a monarch following the end of the American Revolution. Revolutionary wars tend to result with someone not only claiming executive power, but doing so with the support of the general population - the ones that supported the revolution anyway.

Here's Washington refusing to do so despite the insistence of his officers. The story goes that this gave him a degree of trust - the participants of the Constitutional Convention designed the executive branch with the assumption he would occupy it. As president he was noteworthy in many ways for what he did not do as what he did. Not claiming the right to serve for life was top among them.

I find it worth noting the he pushed for pensions for the officers, not the rank and file soldiers.

Look at past posts tagged presidential powers and George Washington for more. Take note of the comparisons made of Washington with the Roman General Cincinnatus.

- Click here for the article.

Washington’s willingness to return to civilian life was an essential element in the transformation of the War for Independence into a true revolution. During the war, Congress had granted Washington powers equivalent to those of a dictator and he could have easily taken solitary control of the new nation. Indeed, some political factions wanted Washington to become the new nation’s king. His modesty in declining the offer and resigning his military post at the end of the war fortified the republican foundations of the new nation.

Blame George Washington

A history professor points out that the conflict between Congress and the President over war making was settled - in the Constitution - in favor of Congress, but things changed quickly due to the fact that our first president was a general, with some understanding of the military.

As a result, Congress began the habit of deferring to the president in military matters. Most of what Congress did was to respond after the fact to military matters which the executive got in the habit of embarking upon as it deemed necessary.

- Click here for the article.

In 1787, delegates met in Philadelphia to discuss revising the older “Articles of Confederation” that governed the U.S. They quickly jettisoned these, dedicating themselves instead to crafting the document that would become the U.S. Constitution.

The delegates were almost unanimous in their belief that war powers would rest in the hands of the legislature, not the executive branch. In fact, early drafts of the Constitution specified that Congress would have the power to “make war.” This was ultimately changed to “declare war” to avoid tying the hands of the president in the case of sudden attacks. But most essential functions of war-making, and by extension, foreign policy, remained in the hands of Congress.

In this formulation, the executive simply executed the will of Congress. The president was the “commander in chief,” but when it came to decisions about going to war, continuing wars and funding wars, Congress supplied the brains, and the president provided the muscle.

Problems began with the first president. George Washington knew more about war than anyone in Congress, and he immediately shifted the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The catalyst was a war of sorts, but one that wouldn't be waged against the standing army of another nation.

Instead, Washington sought "buy in" to go after the Indian tribes that began attacking white settlers on the western frontier in the late 1780s. Like the Islamic State today, they posed a threat that was at once amorphous, hard to reach, and even harder to combat. The Miami and Shawnee tribes of the Ohio River Valley had scalped and murdered settlers, stolen livestock and taken civilians captive.

In 1789, Washington dutifully went to Congress, and warned lawmakers that it might be necessary to “punish aggressors” on the western frontier. Congress, preoccupied by other matters, declared that it wouldn't “hesitate to concur in such further measures” that Washington had in mind. No formal vote authorizing war was held.

Two presidential takes on Thanksgving

The Volokh Conspiracy highlights the different approaches Washington and Jefferson took to Thanksgiving.

Washington had little problem using his authority to set aside a day of thanksgiving with explicit religious content, but Jefferson saw it as beyond his authority as president to do so.

What if George Washington decided to be a tyrant?

The newest version of the computer game Assassin's Creed is based on the premise the George Washington "succumbed to the allure of infinite power" and became a tyrant.


A single-player campaign delivered through three episodes, the content tasks players will dethroning Washington and returning freedom to the colonies. Ubisoft had no qualms about altering history, according to executive producer Sebastien Puel.

“History is our playground, and [Assassin's Creed] teams have always loved playing with historical facts and their consequences as a way to better understand a time period,” Puel said in a statement. “While Assassin’s Creed III concentrates on history as it happens, we wanted to take some liberties with this DLC and tell you how things ‘could have happened.’”

Sweet. We should play it in class.

How Party Identifiers See the World

Apparently its not government party identifiers fear, but who controls it.

From the Gallup Poll: (via The Monkey Cage)

So party identifiers see government as an "immediate threat to citizens," what ever that means, when the other party is in power. Is this rational? Again, since I've posted on this several times, this might underscore Washington's warnings about political parties being an unnecessary source of contention in society.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Can the Two Party System Govern?

Thomas Friedman has his doubts and is calling for a strong third party movement in 2012. He begins by reminding us -- as the founders would -- of the factors which led to the demise of the Roman Republic:

A friend in the U.S. military sent me an e-mail last week with a quote from the historian Lewis Mumford’s book, “The Condition of Man,” about the development of civilization. Mumford was describing Rome’s decline: “Everyone aimed at security: no one accepted responsibility. What was plainly lacking, long before the barbarian invasions had done their work, long before economic dislocations became serious, was an inner go. Rome’s life was now an imitation of life: a mere holding on. Security was the watchword — as if life knew any other stability than through constant change, or any form of security except through a constant willingness to take risks.”

He argues that our two major parties are concerned with their own security (not the nation.s) and refusing to accept responsibility for their failures (since to do so might jeopardize their electoral competitiveness).

We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies.
...


We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world’s leaders, not the new Romans.”
His chief complaint echoes some of the warnings Washington made regarding the development of parties in the early years of the republic: It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.

My 2301s will wrestle with this soon enough, but let's keep in mind that when it comes to arguments about government and politics, there is little new under the sun. Washington would understand and sympathize with Friedman's complaint. The problem, as we will discover, is that electoral rules favor the development and continuation of a two party system, so this might be an unrealistic goal.

Did George Washington Really add "So Help Me God" to the Presidential Oath of Office?

Thanks to a student for pointing this story out to me. The common story, which I've repeated, is that Washington altered the presidential oath of office to include "so help me God" at the end, thus beginning a tradition that lasts til today.

A historian points out that not only is there no evidence from that time that he did so (the story evolved decades later) altering the oath seem not to be the sort of thing Washington would have been inclined to do -- having just approved the oath as written in the Constitution. There's more to the argument.

Reminds me of the story regarding the cherry tree (look here and here).

This fits into our discussion of the personal presidency, the efforts to define in terms of the characters of the individuals who occupy it. The stories reflect less on Washington than on what we (or more appropriately the storytellers) want to believe about historical figures.

Please send more.

Lord Fairfax of Cameron

An early patron of the young George Washington. I need to learn more about these colonial personalities.

Closely Inspecting the Farewell Address: Washington on Sectionalism

If you read through Washington's address it becomes apparent why the Senators declined to sit while the address was being read. He counsels against the sort of animosity and division common today and advises that we distrust anyone who would try to create them. In fact much of what he says suggests that he would be opposed to the state oriented flavor in the campaigns of current candidates for public office. Here's some relevant text:

The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those, which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.

I do think its worth comparing this comment with Madison's observations in Federalist #10. Madison tells us that divisions are inevitable and are to be expected. Is Washington simply being unrealistic?

Is Congress Broken, Part 5: The Baneful Influence of Parties

I think this such a terrific article I copied the whole thing. You can also read it here. I like the authors use of Washington's Farewell Address to compare the current state of political parties in the Senate. This fits in with the recent "Is Congress Broken" posts.

Both 2301 and 2302 students ought to be prepared to discuss this in class.

From the bluest of states, a red senator of a different color

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 23, 2010; A02

So much for the Massachusetts Miracle.

The election of Republican Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's Senate seat was supposed to bring a seismic change to national politics. It did just that Monday night, but not in the way Republicans had hoped.

It was almost time to vote on the Senate jobs bill, the first major vote since Brown's arrival. Republicans were counting on their new member to be their "41st vote," the number needed to sustain filibusters and shoot down any and all Democratic proposals.

Brown, his desk in the back corner, was the only Republican in the room as Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered a final denunciation of the GOP before the vote. "My friends on the other side of the aisle are looking for ways not to vote for this," he said, accusing them of putting "partisanship ahead of people."

As Reid spoke, Brown was leafing through a Senate face book, learning to recognize his new colleagues. As soon as the vote was called, he strode quickly into the well and interrupted the clerk as he read the roll.

"Yes," Brown said quietly, and then, having become Reid's first vote, he rushed out of the room before Republican colleagues arrived. He stepped into the hallway, then waited for reporters to assemble around him.

"I'm not from around here," he said. "I'm from Massachusetts."

Back inside the Senate chamber, Maine's Susan Collins, a Republican moderate, followed Brown's lead and voted yes. The floodgates opened, and the GOP filibuster was broken with two votes to spare.

It was a good way to celebrate George Washington's birthday.

Three hours before the jobs-bill vote, the Senate chamber opened with its 117-year tradition of reading Washington's Farewell Address on his birthday. The current lawmakers evidently didn't think much of the tradition, for they assigned the reading to Roland Burris, the senator from Blagojevich. Total number of senators at their desks for the reading: zero.

That's too bad, for Washington's words were never more relevant. "The common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it," Burris read, haltingly, on the floor Monday afternoon. "It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another."

The Senate then moved to validate Washington's concern by taking up the jobs bill. The measure had been rolling toward swift and easy passage -- a tally of 80 votes had been anticipated -- because of a bipartisan deal negotiated between the top Democrat and Republican on the Finance Committee.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid upended the deal and replaced the bipartisan deal with a smaller bill favored by Senate liberals. Republicans, predictably, withdrew their support. And Democrats, predictably, went to the Senate TV studio to denounce the Republicans.

The ferociously partisan Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) explained why "it's sometimes more important to force a clear vote" rather than getting in the "swamp of negotiating" with Republicans. "I think continuing to force votes is the prerogative of the majority."
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to inform Republicans that "there comes a time when you've got to put politics aside."

With Republican leaders vowing opposition to Reid's version of the bill, it appeared that Democratic leaders had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And it was a pointless snarl. Democrats scuttled a bipartisan deal full of provisions they supported, just to pick a fight with Republicans. Republicans, furious that their good-faith negotiations had been ignored, opposed the pared-down version of the bill even though they favored its contents.

It was, in other words, just what Washington warned about 214 years ago when he cautioned against "the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party."

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism," the first president wrote. "But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism."

One man who did seem to get that message from the ages was Brown, who it appears hasn't been in Washington long enough to be intoxicated by the Spirit of Party.

Moments before the vote, Brown's office sent out word that he planned to side with the Democrats, and some last-minute buttonholing by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) evidently didn't change his mind.

"It's not a perfect bill, but it's certainly a bill that I felt comfortable enough to vote on, because it's the first step in creating jobs," Brown said. "And anytime you can make a small step, it's still a step."

Back on the Senate floor, the Democratic leader admired his unexpected gift for Washington's birthday. "Whether this new day was created by the new senator from Massachusetts or some other reason," said Reid, "I'm very, very happy."

A Word From GW

When we cover political parties in 2301, I have us read through Washington's Farewell Address and consider his concern about the rising power of political parties. It's useful to reconsider his point in light of the voter id controversy in the the Texas Legislature, which seems to be a primarily partisan issue. The Republican Party is likely to benefit electorally from the requirement while the Democratic Party is likely to suffer from it. While the fight rages on, more pressing substantive concerns may well not be addressed. This was Washington's fear:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.

Though I don't think Washington's concerns about party competition leading people to seek security in the absolute power of individuals has come to pass, it is likely that party competition has made it less likely that we can appropriately govern ourselves adequately. In my opinion the decision by the parties in Texas to place the Voter ID debate ahead of more substantive concerns proves that parties come before the public welfare in our democratic republic. Maybe Washington had a point.

The First Presidential Pardon

Meet "Tom the Tinker," the pseudonym of the force behind the Whisky Rebellion. It's organizers -- who represented the interests of the small distillers who were most effected by the whisky tax -- were imprisoned by national forces, but later pardoned by George Washington.

This was the first use of presidential pardoning authority.

%$#*& !

A student wrestling with the Washington civility assignment informs me of an effort to clean up the air in South Pasadena California by creating a cuss free zone:

Under a City Council proclamation approved Wednesday, those who use profanity or make rude gestures could find themselves shamed into better behavior by the unsettling glances of South Pasedena residents who take their reputation for civility seriously.

"That's one of the purposes of this," Mayor Michael Cacciotti said of his city's proclamation designating the first week of March as No Cussing Week. "It provides us a reminder to be more civil, to elevate the level of discourse."

Notice that there is no official enforcement mechanism, residents should take matters into their own hands by shaming others into compliance.

Two questions pop to mind. First will this work--will people respond to shaming? And second, is this in the spirit of Washington's rules? The rules did not state how others should behave, they only spoke about how the individual should behave. It's not about society, but about self control. The later is a precondition for the former. Let;s tie this second observation back to the first. Do we change society by enforcing change or by changing ourselves? And how do we determine whether either works?

Here's a related read: Regulation by Shaming.

There's at least one historical example of shaming causing social change. It was called frown power and it was used in the South by whites to signal subtly to racist whites that casual bigoted comments were not acceptable to them. It was developed by a man named Stetson Kennedy.