GEORGE WASHINGTON (1732–1799) · Washington’s favorite play was Cato, written by the Englishman...

When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.

—George Washington

George Washington had called this gathering, but the officers of theContinental Army did not expect their commander-in-chief to appear inperson at the meetinghouse at Newburgh, New York. The year was1783, and though the War for Independence had been won, Congresshad failed to pay their salaries. They had been whispering for weeksabout marching on Philadelphia and taking control of thegovernment at gunpoint. Washington hoped that he could squelch thetreasonous plans.

An officer was in the middle of a fiery speech when Washingtonappeared at the door. The room fell silent as the great commanderstrode to the front of the assembly and stepped onto a makeshift platform.Washington said he would read a letter from a congressman that promisedthe army would receive its due. Washington pulled the letter from his pocketand unfolded it. Then he hesitated and squinted at the paper in front of him. Themen shuffled uneasily as their commander reached into his pocket again and removed apair of reading glasses. Eyeglasses were considered a sign of physical weakness in the era,and Washington had worn his only in the presence of family. But now the general putthem on in front of his officers for the first time. “Gentlemen,” Washington said, “youwill permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but nearly blindin the service of my country.” Many officers, reminded of the sacrifices made by theirhonorable commander, began to weep. With that, the Newburgh Conspiracy was over.

BackgroundGeorge Washington was born on February 22, 1732, in Westmoreland County, Virginia.His father was a prominent planter who died when Washington was eleven years old.After his father’s death, Washington spent much of his time with his older half-brother,Lawrence, at his plantation home, Mount Vernon.

In 1752, Lawrence died, and Washington inherited the Mount Vernon Estate, whichhe eventually expanded to 8,000 acres. Washington owned thirty-six slaves at the timehe acquired Mount Vernon. By the end of his life, he would own more than 300.

Love and WarSoon after Lawrence’s death, Washington became a major in the Virginia militia.Washington gained recognition for his bravery in combat during the French and IndianWar. He was soon made commander of the entire Virginia militia. But Washington wasdenied the commission in the regular British army that he so desired. Disappointed, heresigned from the militia in 1758 and returned to Mount Vernon.

The next year Washington married the wealthy widow, Martha Dandridge Custis.Martha brought twenty slaves and two children to Mount Vernon. Washington spent thenext fifteen years as a gentleman farmer, concentrating on expanding his plantation andimproving farming methods. He also served in the House of Burgesses.

George Washington

GEORGE WASHINGTON (1732–1799)

Handout A

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

r

r

15 128-137 Found2 Wash 9/13/07 11:23 AM 33

RevolutionIn 1774, Washington represented Virginia at the Continental Congress. The followingyear, Congress selected him to be commander-in-chief of the Continental Army.Washington was a logical choice. His honored character was respected by all. He lookedthe part of a warrior, standing well over six feet tall with a martial demeanor. He was aVirginian, and his appointment rallied southerners to the Patriot cause.

For the next six years, Washington kept the American army alive in the face of asuperior British force. In 1778, France signed a treaty of alliance with America. Threeyears later, Washington’s force and the French navy joined together to bottle up the mainBritish force under Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia. With Cornwallis’s surrender,the American Revolution was essentially over.

American Cato, American CincinnatusIn 1783, Washington resigned his commission. Many observers in foreign nations wereshocked. It was almost unprecedented for a victorious general to give up powervoluntarily. But Washington had tried all his life to imitate two virtuous characters ofancient history.

Washington’s favorite play was Cato, written by the Englishman Joseph Addison.The title character of the play was a Roman who died resisting the tyranny of JuliusCaesar. Another ancient figure whom Washington admired was the legendaryCincinnatus. He was a Roman farmer who was called upon to take command of therepublic’s armies and repel Rome’s enemies. After their defeat, Cincinnatus put down hissword and became a farmer once more.

Crossroads and ConventionWashington did not have a quiet retirement when he returned to Mount Vernon in 1783.Mount Vernon was a crossroads for political discussion. Guests such as James Madisonand Gouverneur Morris spent hours in conversation with Washington about the state ofthe young nation. During these talks, Washington became convinced that the Articles ofConfederation needed revision. “The confederation,” Washington wrote in 1785,“appears to me to be little more than a shadow without substance.”

Washington was chosen to preside over the Constitutional Convention of 1787,which was called to strengthen the central government. Though he said almost nothingduring the debates, Washington’s presence had important effects. First, it caused thedelegates to be on their best behavior and reassured the country. It is also likely that thepresidency would never have been entrusted to one person had the delegates inIndependence Hall not known that Washington was certain to be the first chief executive.

The PresidencyWashington declared that the Constitution produced by the Convention was “little shortof a miracle.” He accepted the electoral college’s unanimous decision that he be the firstpresident. During his first term in office, Washington proved to be a nationalist ondomestic issues, usually siding with his secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton.The opposition to Hamilton’s economic program was headed by the secretary of state,Thomas Jefferson. Political parties began to form around these two men, a developmentthat Washington strongly disliked.

Washington’s second term as president was challenged by foreign and domestic troubles.Party conflict worsened as Americans chose sides in the war between Britain and France

Founders and the Constitution: In Their Own Words—Volume 2

Handout A

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

15 128-137 Found2 Wash 9/13/07 11:23 AM Page 134

that broke out in 1793. But Washington was able to maintain official neutrality and keepthe United States out of war. The president was also compelled to put down the WhiskeyRebellion, a tax revolt by distillers in western Pennsylvania.

“First in the Hearts of His Countrymen”At the end of his second term as president in 1797, Washington retired to Mount Vernonfor the third and final time. Tired of partisan politics, committed to rotation in the officeof president, and concerned that if he died in office he would set an example that thepresident should serve for life, Washington chose not to seek a third term. It is often saidthat by doing so, he established the two-term tradition for presidents.

Washington’s prediction that he would not survive another four years provedaccurate. He died of an inflamed throat on December 14, 1799. In his will, he providedfor the freeing of all his slaves once Martha died. His death brought an outpouring ofgrief throughout America. Mock funerals were held in nearly every city, and hundredsof eulogies were given in his honor. Washington had justly earned the title, “Father ofHis Country.”

George Washington

Handout A

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

Reading Comprehension Questions

1. Why was Washington a logical choice to be commander-in-chief of theContinental Army?

2. What two ancient figures did Washington admire? Who were these men?

3. What important political role did Mount Vernon fulfill during the 1780s?

Critical Thinking Questions

4. How did George Washington’s actions at crucial times change the courseof history?

5. In a eulogy for Washington, Henry Lee declared that the great Virginian was“first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” Whatdo you think Lee meant by this?


Excerpts from the Farewell Address (1796)

1. Vocabulary: Use context clues to determine the meaning or significance of each ofthese words and write their definitions:

a. calculated

b. efficacious

c. unawed

d. acquiescence

e. enjoined

f. obligatory

g. presuppose

h. extensive

i. vigor

j. indispensable

2. Context: Answer the following questions.

a. When was this document written?

b. Who wrote this document?

c. What type of document is this?

d. What was the purpose of this document?


VOCABULARY AND CONTEXT QUESTIONS

Handout B

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute


Excerpts from the Farewell Address (1796)

1. . . . You have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution ofgovernment better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for theefficacious management of your common concerns.

2. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed,adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in itsprinciples, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, andcontaining within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim toyour confidence and your support.

3. Respect for [the Constitution’s] authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescencein its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty.

4. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to altertheir constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists,till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredlyobligatory upon all.

5. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish governmentpresupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. . . .

6. In a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistentwith the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such agovernment, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian.

Source: “Washington’s Farewell Address 1796.” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School.<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm>.

George Washington

IN HIS OWN WORDS: GEORGE WASHINGTON ON THE CONSTITUTION

Handout C

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute


As Benjamin Franklin left Philadelphia’s ConventionHall in September 1787, upon the completion of thework of the Framers of the Constitution, a womanapproached him and asked the old sage of theRevolution what the delegates had created. Franklinresponded, “A republic, Madame, if you can keepit.” The woman’s reaction to Franklin’s reply is left unrecorded by history,but she might well haveasked Franklin for a moredetailed answer. Thoughthe word “republic” wascommon currency inAmerica at the time, themeaning of the term wasimprecise, encompassingvarious and diverse formsof government.

Broadly, a republicmeant a country not governed by a king. The rootof the word is the Latin, res publica, meaning “thepublic things.” “The word republic,” Thomas Painewrote, “means the public good, or the good of thewhole, in contradistinction to the despotic form,which makes the good of the sovereign, or of oneman, the only object of the government.” In arepublic, the people are sovereign, delegatingcertain powers to the government whose duty is tolook to the general welfare of society. That citizensof a republic ought to place the common goodbefore individual self-interest was a key assumptionamong Americans of the eighteenth century.“Every man in a republic,” proclaimed BenjaminRush, “is public property. His time and talents—his youth—his manhood—his old age, nay more,life, all belong to his country.”

Republicanism was not an American invention.In shaping their governments, Americans looked tohistory, first to the ancient world, and specifically tothe Israel of the Old Testament, the Roman republic,and the Greek city-states. New Englanders inparticular often cited the ancient state of Israel as theworld’s first experiment in republican governmentand sometimes drew a parallel between the TwelveTribes of Israel and the thirteen American states. In1788, while ratification of the Constitution wasbeing debated, one Yankee preacher gave a sermonentitled,“The Republic of the Israelites an Example

to the American States.” Indeed, the Bible was citedby American authors in the eighteenth centurymore often than any other single source.

Americans not only knew their Bible, but alsothe history of the Greeks and Romans. The eliteclass mastered ancient languages and literature, arequirement of colleges at the time. To these men

of the eighteenth century,ancient languages were notdead, nor were ancientevents distant; rather,the worlds of Pericles and Polybius, Sallust andCicero were vibrant and near. The relativelyminor advancements intechnology across 2,000years—people still traveledby horse and sailing ship—

served to reinforce the bond eighteenth-centuryAmericans felt with the ancients.

Like the Greeks and Romans of antiquity,Americans believed that government must concernitself with the character of its citizenry. Indeed,virtue was “the Soul of a republican Government,”as Samuel Adams put it. Virtue had twoconnotations, one secular and the other sacred.The root of the word was the Latin, vir, meaning“man,” and indeed republican virtue often referredto the display of such “manly” traits as courage andself-sacrifice for the common good. These qualitieswere deemed essential for a republic’s survival. “Apopular government,” Patrick Henry proclaimed,“cannot flourish without virtue in the people.” Butvirtue could also mean the traditional Judeo-Christian virtues, and many Americans feared thatGod would punish the entire nation for the sins ofits people. “Without morals,” Charles Carrollproclaimed, “a republic cannot subsist any lengthof time.” New Englanders in particular sought tohave society’s institutions—government andschools as well as churches—inculcate such qualitiesas industry, frugality, temperance, and chastity inthe citizenry. The Massachusetts Constitution of1780, for example, provided for “public instructionsin piety, religion, and morality.”

The second ingredient of a good republic was awell-constructed government with good institutions.

Republican Government

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT� �

04 011-015 Found2 Repub 9/13/07 10:55 AM Page 11

“If the foundation is badly laid,” George Washingtonsaid of the American government,“the superstructuremust be bad.” Americans adhered to a modifiedversion of the idea of “mixed”government, advocatedby the Greek thinker Polybius and later republicantheorists. A mixed republic combined the threebasic parts of society—monarchy (the one ruler),aristocracy (the rich few), and democracy (thepeople)—in a proper formula so that no one partcould tyrannize the others. But Americans believedthat the people of a republic were sovereign, so theysought to create institutions that approximated themonarchical and aristocraticelements of society. TheFramers of the Constitutiondid just this by fashioning asingle executive and a Senateonce removed from thepeople. The problem, as JohnAdams pointed out in hisThoughts on Government, wasthat “the possible combinations of the powers ofsociety are capable of innumerable variations.”

Americans had every reason to be pessimisticabout their experiment in republicanism. Historytaught that republics were inherently unstable andvulnerable to decay. The Roman republic and thecity-state of Athens, for instance, had succumbed tothe temptations of empire and lost their liberty. Thehistories of the Florentine and Venetian republicsof Renaissance Italy too had been glorious but short-lived. Theorists from the ancient Greek thinkerPolybius to the seventeenth-century English radicalAlgernon Sidney warned that republics suffer fromparticular dangers that monarchies and despotismsdo not. Republics were assumed to burn brightlybut briefly because of their inherent instability.One element of society always usurped power andestablished a tyranny.

The great danger to republics, it was generallybelieved, stemmed from corruption, which, likevirtue, had both a religious and a worldly meaning.Corruption referred, first, to the prevalence ofimmorality among the people. “Liberty,” SamuelAdams asserted, “will not long survive the totalExtinction of Morals.”

“If the Morals of the people” were neglected,Elbridge Gerry cautioned during the crisis withEngland, American independence would notproduce liberty but “a Slavery, far exceeding that ofevery other Nation.”

This kind of corruption most often resultedfrom avarice, the greed for material wealth. SeveralAmerican colonial legislatures therefore passed

sumptuary laws, which prohibited ostentatiousdisplays of wealth. “Luxury . . . leads tocorruption,” a South Carolinian declared duringthe Revolutionary era, “and whoever encouragesgreat luxury in a free state must be a bad citizen.”Another writer warned of the “ill effect ofsuperfluous riches” on republican society. Avaricewas seen as a “feminine” weakness; the lust forwealth rotted away “masculine” virtues. JohnAdams bemoaned “vanities, levities, and fopperies,which are real antidotes to all great, manly, andwarlike virtues.”

The second meaning ofcorruption referred toplacing private interest abovethe common good. Thistemptation plagued publicofficials most of all, who hadample opportunity tomisappropriate public fundsand to expand their power.

“Government was instituted for the general good,”Charles Carroll wrote,“but officers instrusted with itspowers have most commonly perverted them to theselfish views of avarice and ambition.” Increasinglyin the eighteenth century, Americans came to seegovernment itself as the primary source of corruption.

Fear of government’s tendency to expand itspower at the expense of the people’s liberty waspart of Americans’ English political heritage. Theyimbibed the writings of late-seventeenth-centuryEnglish radicals and eighteenth-century “country”politicians who were suspicious of the power of British officials (the “court”). Governmentcorruption was manifested in patronage (theawarding of political office to friends), faction (theformation of parties whose interests were opposed tothe common good), standing (permanent) armies,established churches, and the promotion of an eliteclass. Power, these country writers argued, waspossessed by the government; it was aggressive andexpansionist. Liberty was the property of thegoverned; it was sacred and delicate. The history ofliberty in the world was a history of defeat by theforces of tyranny.

Though the history of republicanism was adismal one, the lessons of history as well as theirown colonial experience convinced the AmericanFounders that they possessed sufficient informationon which to base a new science of politics.“Experience must be our only guide,”John Dickinsonproclaimed at the Philadelphia Convention; “reasonmay mislead us.” The Framers of the United StatesConstitution all had experience as public servants,


© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

Fear of government’s tendency to expand its power at the expense of thepeople’s liberty was part of Americans’

English political heritage.


and it must be remembered that the documentthey produced did not spring forth as somethingentirely new in the American experience. Rather,the Founders had learned much from the operationof their colonial charters, state constitutions, andthe Articles of Confederation.

At Philadelphia, the Founders focused on theproper construction of the machinery of governmentas the key to the building of a stable republic. TheConstitution makes no mention of the need for virtueamong the people, nor does it make broad appealsfor self-sacrifice on behalf of the common good. It isa hard-headed documentforged by practical men whohad too often witnessedavarice and ambition amongtheir peers in the statehouse, the courtroom, andthe counting house. A goodconstitution, the Foundersheld, was the key to goodgovernment. Corruption and decay could beovercome primarily through the creation of a writtenconstitution—something England lacked—thatcarefully detailed a system in which powers wereseparated and set in opposition to each other sothat none could dominate the others.

James Madison, often called “The Father of theConstitution” because of the great influence of hisideas at Philadelphia, proposed to arrange themachinery of government in such a fashion as notto make virtue or “better motives” critical to theadvancement of the common good. Acknowledgingin The Federalist Papers that “enlightened statesmenwill not always be at the helm,” Madison believedthat the separate powers of government—legislative,executive, and judicial—must be set in oppositionto one another, so that “ambition must be made tocounteract ambition.”

“In framing a government which is to beadministered by men over men,” Madison asserted,“the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enablethe government to control the governed; and in thenext place oblige it to control itself.”

James Wilson, representing Pennsylvania atthe Philadelphia Convention, declared that theConstitution’s separation of powers and checksand balances made “it advantageous even for badmen to act for the public good.” This is not to saythat the delegates believed that the republic couldsurvive if corruption vanquished virtue in society.Madison himself emphasized the importance ofrepublican virtue when defending the newgovernment in The Federalist Papers. But the Framers

agreed with Madison that men were not angels, andmost were satisfied that the Constitution, as GeorgeWashington put it,“is provided with more checks andbarriers against the introduction of Tyranny . . . thanany Government hitherto instituted among mortals.”

The question remained, however, whether onepart of society would come to dominate. No matterhow perfect the design, the danger remained that afaction would amass enough political power to takeaway the liberty of others. To combat this problem,classical republican theory called for creating auniformity of opinion among the republican

citizenry so that factionscould not develop. Theancient Greek city-states, forexample, feared anythingthat caused differentiationamong citizens, includingcommerce, which tended tocreate inequalities of wealthand opposing interests. In

contrast, Madison and the Founders recognizedthat factionalism would be inherent in a commercialrepublic that protected freedom of religion, speech,press, and assembly. They sought only to mediatethe deleterious effects of faction.

Republics also were traditionally thought to bedurable only when a small amount of territory wasinvolved. The Greek city-states, the Roman republic,the Italian republics, and the American states allencompassed relatively small areas. When the Romanrepublic expanded in its quest for empire, tyrannywas the result. Madison turned this traditionalthinking on its head in The Federalist Papers, arguingthat a large republic was more conducive to libertybecause it encompassed so many interests that nosingle one, or combination of several, could gaincontrol of the government.

Not all Americans accepted the Madisoniansolution. Agrarians, such as Thomas Jefferson, wereuncomfortable with the idea of a commercial republiccentered on industry and sought to perpetuate anation of independent farmers through the expansionof the frontier. Though uneasy about the “energeticgovernment” created by the Constitution, Jeffersonendorsed the Framers’ work after a bill of rightswas added to the document. “Old republicans” likeSamuel Adams and George Mason opposed theConstitution, even after the addition of a bill ofrights, fearing that the power granted to the centralgovernment was too great and wistfully looking backto the Revolutionary era when virtue, not ambition,was the animating principle of government. But in1789, as the new government went into operation,

Republican Government

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

[The Constitution] is a hard-headeddocument forged by practical men whohad too often witnessed avarice and

ambition among their peers.


most Americans shared the optimism of BenjaminFranklin, who had decided at the conclusion of thePhiladelphia Convention that the sun carved intothe back of the chair used by George Washingtonwas a rising—not a setting—sun, and therebyindicative of the bright prospects of the nation.

“We have it in our power to begin the worldover again,” Thomas Paine had written in 1776,during the heady days of American independence.And indeed the American Founders in 1787 werekeenly aware that they possessed a rare opportunity.

Like the legendary Lycurgus of Ancient Greece,they were to be the supreme lawgivers of a newrepublic, a novus ordo seclorum or new order of theages. The American Founders were aware that theeyes of the world and future generations were uponthem, and they were determined to build an eternalrepublic founded in liberty, a shining city upon ahill, as an example to all nations for all time.

Stephen M. Klugewicz, Ph.D.Consulting Scholar, Bill of Rights Institute


© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

Suggestions for Further ReadingAdair, Douglass. Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998.Bailyn, Bernard. The Origins of American Politics. New York: Vintage Books, 1968.McDonald, Forrest. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. Lawrence: University

Press of Kansas, 1985.Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.Rahe, Paul A. Republics Ancient and Modern, 3 vols. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994.Wood, Gordon. The Creation of the American Republic. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1969.


Thomas Jefferson accurately represented theconvictions of his fellow colonists when heobserved in the Declaration of Independence thata government, to be considered legitimate, must bebased on the consent of the people and respect theirnatural rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness.”Along with other leading members of thefounding generation, Jeffersonunderstood that these principlesdictated that the government begiven only limited powers that,ideally, are carefully described inwritten charters or constitutions.

Modern theorists like JohnLocke and the Baron deMontesquieu had been makingthe case for limited governmentand separation of powers duringthe century prior to the AmericanRevolution. Colonial Americanswere quite familiar with Locke’sargument from his Two Treatisesof Government that “AbsoluteArbitrary Power, or Governing without settledstanding Laws, can neither of them consist with theends of Society and Government. . . .” Locke addedthat the reason people “quit the freedom of thestate of Nature [is] to preserve their Lives, Libertiesand Fortunes.” Civil society has no higher end thanto provide for the safety and happiness of thepeople, and this is best done under a system ofknown rules or laws that apply equally to “the Rich and Poor, . . . the Favorite at Court, and theCountry Man at plough.” For his part, Montesquieuargued that only where governmental power islimited in scope, and then parceled out amongdifferent departments, will people be free fromoppression. Constitutional government, formodern natural rights theorists, should be limitedgovernment dedicated to the comfortablepreservation of the people—that is, to theirsecurity, freedom, and prosperity.

John Adams echoed the beliefs of manyAmericans when he argued that only by creating abalance of forces within the government could thepeople hope to escape despotism and misery. Anunchecked legislature, he observed, would becapable not only of making tyrannical laws, but of

executing them in a tyrannical manner as well. In hisfamous draft of a constitution for the commonwealthof Massachusetts, Adams declared that the“legislative, executive and judicial power shall beplaced in separate departments, to the end that itmight be a government of laws, and not of men.”This document, along with his Defence of the

Constitutions of Government ofthe United States of America,containing a strong case for checksand balances in government,were well known to the delegateswho attended the ConstitutionalConvention of 1787.

James Wilson, one of theforemost legal scholars of thefounding period and a delegatefrom Pennsylvania at theConstitutional Convention, agreedwith Adams’ insistence that thepower of government should bedivided to the end of advancingthe peace and happiness of the

people. In the words of Wilson, “In government,the perfection of the whole depends on the balanceof the parts, and the balance of the parts consists inthe independent exercise of their separate powers,and, when their powers are separately exercised,then in their mutual influence and operation onone another. Each part acts and is acted upon,supports and is supported, regulates and isregulated by the rest.”

Both the Articles of Confederation and theConstitution of the United States provided forgovernments with limited powers. As John Jay haddiscovered as America’s secretary of foreign affairs,the power of the central government was severelylimited under the Articles and, hence, could betrusted to a unitary legislative department. Fear ofgovernmental tyranny and a desire to preserve thepower enjoyed by the new states resulted in thecreation of a central government that could noteffectively oversee interstate commerce or do otherthings that were critical to ensuring the safety andhappiness of the people. In a letter to EdmundRandolph at the end of 1786, George Washingtonbemoaned the “awful situation of our affairs”which he attributed to “the want of sufficient power

LIMITED GOVERNMENT� �


© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

03 008-010 Found2 Limit 9/13/07 10:54 AM Page 8

in the foederal head.”Washington quickly joined themovement to create a new governmental systemthat was equal to “the exigencies of Union,” toquote from the instructions given the delegates tothe Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Constitution of 1787 grew out of a plandrafted largely by James Madison during the winterand spring before the Convention. The “VirginiaPlan” proposed a central government that wassupreme over the states. Evidence that the nationalgovernment was to be entrusted with considerablepower could be found in the provisions for abicameral legislature andindependent executive andjudicial departments.

The delegates whoattended the ConstitutionalConvention were sufficientlyversed in modern politicaltheory to understand thatthey would have to dividethe power of the national government if theyintended to entrust it with real authority over thelives of the people and the states. They understoodthe dangers of imparting considerable politicalpower to a unitary sovereign. In this connection,there was never any doubt in their minds that theyshould create a government of “delegated andenumerated” powers, that is, that the governmentshould only be entrusted with specified(enumerated) powers that derived directly fromthe people. While they worried about the“turbulence and follies” of democracy, theyrecognized that government had to be based on theconsent of the people to be legitimate.

The Virginia Plan anticipated the bicamerallegislature and independent executive and judicialdepartments found in the United States Constitutiontoday. Building on Madison’s model, the delegatesassigned responsibilities to the departments basedon their peculiar characteristics. The six-year termof senators, for example, seemed to make this aproper institution to involve in foreign policy (e.g.,ratification of treaties) since senators would havemore time than members of the House ofRepresentatives to acquaint themselves withinternational affairs and their longer terms andlarger constituencies (entire states) also would givethem more freedom to attend to matters otherthan the immediate interests of constituents backhome. The House of Representatives was entrustedwith the important power to initiate revenue(taxation) bills precisely because the members of

this chamber are tied so closely to the people byshort terms and small districts.

In addition to matching powers andgovernmental responsibilities, the delegates werecareful to position each department to “check andbalance” the other departments. Examples are the executive’s veto power, the congressionalimpeachment power, and the judicial review powerentrusted to the Supreme Court, the only nationalcourt formally established by the Constitution.Although in good Lockean fashion the legislativedepartment was designed to be the preeminent

department, it was stillsubjected to checks by theother branches of thegovernment. Separation ofpowers as well as the systemof checks and balances weredevices for reducing the threatof governmental tyranny, notexcluding legislative tyranny.

However, the constitutional arrangement, putinto its final wording by Gouverneur Morris, wasnot driven entirely by a desire to eliminate thethreat of tyrannical government. The system ofseparated and divided powers also was intended topromote competence in government. Thepresident can employ his veto not only to checklegislative action that he considers irresponsible,but to provoke Congress to improve a legislativeenactment. The Senate can use its authority toratify presidential nominations of cabinet officersor judges to ensure that qualified candidates arenamed to fill these positions.

Writing in Federalist No. 9, Alexander Hamiltonidentified the principle of separated and dividedpowers, along with checks and balances, as amongthe inventions of the new science of politics thathad made republican government defensible.Madison described in Federalist No. 51 the benefitsof the governmental arrangement represented inthe new Constitution: “In the compound republicof America, the power surrendered by the people isfirst divided between two distinct governments,and then the portion allotted to each subdividedamong distinct and separate departments. Hence adouble security arises to the rights of the people.The different governments will control each other,at the same time that each will be controlled byitself.” Significantly, Anti-Federalists as well asFederalists agreed that governmental powersshould be limited and that these powers should besubject to internal as well as external checks.

Limited Government

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

There was never any doubt in theirminds that they should create agovernment of “delegated and

enumerated” powers . . .


It is important to emphasize that the Framerssettled on an arrangement that divided yet blendedthe legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Thisfacilitates interdepartmental checking whilepromoting mature deliberation. Their aim was tocreate a decent and competent democracy, somethingbeyond mere non-tyrannical government. Theyplaced the whole of the government, and even thepeople, under constitutional limitations. TheConstitution is the supreme law of the land, notthe enactments of Congress or the order of thepresident or the momentary will of the people. AsChief Justice Marshall declared in Marbury v.Madison (1803), “The distinction between agovernment with limited and unlimited powers isabolished, if those limits do not confine the personson whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibitedand acts allowed, are of equal obligation.” Even the

desires of the people are held in check by theConstitution. The political system still meets thecriteria of democratic government, however, sincethe people hold the power, through theirrepresentatives, to amend the Constitution.

The paradigm of constitutional governmentembraced by the American people in 1787, that is,limited government based on the consent of thepeople and committed to the protection offundamental rights, has become the dominant modelthroughout the world. The rhetoric of rights, whethercouched in the language of natural rights or humanrights, is universally appealing. Also universallyaccepted is the argument that rights are most securewhen governmental powers are limited in scopeand subject to internal and external checks.

David E. Marion, Ph.D.Hampden-Sydney College


© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

Suggestions for Further ReadingFrohnen, Bruce (ed.). The American Republic: Primary Sources. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002.Kurland, Philip B. and Ralph Lerner (eds.) The Founders’ Constitution. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987.Mansfield, Harvey C., Jr. Taming the Prince. New York: The Free Press, 1989.McDonald, Forrest. A Constitutional History of the United States. New York: Franklin Watts, 1982.Storing, Herbert J. What the Anti-Federalists Were For. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.Wood, Gordon. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. New York: W.W. Norton, 1969.


GEORGE WASHINGTON (1732–1799) · Washington’s favorite play was Cato, written by the Englishman...

Documents

Transcript of GEORGE WASHINGTON (1732–1799) · Washington’s favorite play was Cato, written by the Englishman...