Was Washington overrated?

[Bushwa777]

So I have been reading Washington by Ron Chernow. Question do you think that Washington was overrated?  Should he have:

1. Stepped away from running for President?

2. Stepped away after 1st term?

3. Run for a 3rd term?

4. Do nothing different 

[ConservativeElector2]

He should have run for a third term imho

[Pringles]

Preventing a John Adams 1796 would've been nice but I do think Washington is often overrated simply because he's the first President. I think he's one of our greatest Founding Fathers obviously, and I still would rank him highly as a President. But I admit not much of my ranking him high is based on what he did as President. I'm very much a Jeffersonian if I were in that time. 

[ConservativeElector2]

13 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Preventing a John Adams 1796

That and my hope would have been mainly that a 3rd term of Washington had delayed the downfall of the Federalists, which you wouldn't care about as a Jeffersonian anyway 😛

[10centjimmy]

1) Outside of Benjamin Franklin, in 1776 he was probably the only American that most of the country knew about. So right there he has a leg up on all other founding fathers.  Then after the war, no one else could've been the unifying figure the country needed in 1788. So no, he really was the only reasonable option to be the first president. Also, the idea of a strong executive was essentially his idea. The experience of a hamstrung commander in chief by the committees of the Congress led him to push for centralized executive authority (documented in Washington's personal correspondence). It would be hard to see him step away from the table that he helped set. 

 

2) He could've, but all that would've done is bring about hyper partisanship in the midst of a European war, disrupting any chance for the fledgling US to build up in neutrality.  We probably would've seen Jefferson jump in early, with increased economic instability, and tie the country to revolutionary France, ultimately inviting a British invasion and/or embargo. There's a chance the 4 year precedent would ultimately be good for the country, assuming the US survived the rest of the 18th century. 

 

3) Not unless he was elected unanimously, which is really why he stepped down anyways. Regardless, he stepped away from becoming a king at a time that was literally unfathomable in history. 

 

Washington was absolutely not perfect, and did a lot of bad things while president, but he was a uniting force when the country needed it.  Maybe he was overrated in that he was deified, but as president he was precisely what the country needed to have a chance to survive.

And was the only slave-holding founding father that actually did anything about freeing people (though after his death, and not the slaves of his wife).

[Rezi]

2 hours ago, Pringles said:

Preventing a John Adams 1796 would've been nice 

I think a Washington 3rd term would've been much closer to the Adams presidency than most people like to admit.

[10centjimmy]

Of the founding fathers/early presidents, I'd argue Jefferson was the most overrated. 

1) Claim to fame was "author of declaration of independence" when the language was drafted by a committee.  Adams, Franklin, and Lee were far more Instrumental than Jefferson. Even Caleb Rodney of DE traveled while sick in the middle of a storm to cast the deciding vote for independence. 

2) During the US under the Articles of Confederation, wrote and argued in favor of prohibiting slavery from the northwest territory, but while president completely blew the chance to do the same thing in the Louisiana territory. There was the second and best chance to have the country live up to its ideals and end slavery peacefully.

3) As Sec State, Attacked his own president and rivals via a state dept funded newspaper and then lied about it when directly asked. 

4) As President, slashed military and navy spending then did nothing to halt British and French impressment of sailors. Implemented a self embargo on US shipping to those countries, effectively destroying US trade.  

5) Argued for the nullification theory in the Kentucky Resolves which ultimately gave Calhoun his arguments to counter the authority of the Constitution.  As president, you give an oath to defend that constitution so it seems out of place to undercut it. 

5) Sally Hemmings 

All this being said, he did advocate for religious freedom and his waffling on Constitutional flexibility allowed for the Louisiana purchase. 

[Pringles]

31 minutes ago, Rezi said:

I think a Washington 3rd term would've been much closer to the Adams presidency than most people like to admit.

Sure, but I’ll take the closet Federalist over the other fellow. 

[Pringles]

2 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

That and my hope would have been mainly that a 3rd term of Washington had delayed the downfall of the Federalists, which you wouldn't care about as a Jeffersonian anyway 😛

It’s ironic that in the modern day you have conservatives who will be either be more supportive of Federalists in the past, or Anti Federalists/DR’s. I think it’s quite indicative on one’s own ideological foundation. Statism vs Anti-Statism. Classical Liberalism vs Toryism (in the past sense.) 

If I had to give credit to the Federalist Party as a whole it’d be for some of their members foresight concerning how a modern US economy, and industry would look. They clearly however were not a party for the needs of the time they existed in 😛

[vcczar]

I think he did the right thing. Two terms and stepped down. I think he gets 100% for duty. I think he had some flaws, but he did better than anyone else could have for setting a precedence. He was cautious in the best ways. I think he would have been a below average president in some other eras, but he was the best for his time. A to A+

Strangely had he a 3rd term, he likely would be viewed less favorably. He was much, much more hardcore for the Alien & Sedition Acts. This includeds the possibility of using troops against Americans violating these acts. His letters seem to tolerate the potential use of troops in the South against Jeffersonians (which they were calling Jacobins).  Peace with France might not have been attained before a true war broke out. As harsh as we are on Adams, he was probably the right Federalist or Federalist-aligned independent for that time. Adams rarely enforced the A&S Acts, much to the chagrin of most Federalists. 

Short answer. No, Washington is not overrated. He's a top 5 president 100%, and likely top 3. Only Lincoln and FDR are arguably better.

[ShortKing]

I think a third term of Washington would have been really bad for the precedent it would set. He would have likely died in office (he died in 1799, two years into what would have been his third term) and it would have set the precedent that you run and serve until you die in office. He knew the historical import his decisions and actions carried and exercised a lot of prudence in how he went about them. I do not think he was overrated and I would personally rank him below Lincoln and above FDR at #2

[Pringles]

36 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

I think a third term of Washington would have been really bad for the precedent it would set. He would have likely died in office (he died in 1799, two years into what would have been his third term) and it would have set the precedent that you run and serve until you die in office. He knew the historical import his decisions and actions carried and exercised a lot of prudence in how he went about them.

This is probably the best take I've seen on why Washington isn't overrated. Nevertheless, it disregards plenty of his bad decisions and proneness to defer certain policies onto Hamilton for better or worse depending on one's opinion of Hamilton. Whiskey Rebellion, etc. 

I don't think anybody is taking Washington out of the top 10. But I won't put him in the top 3 simply because he's the first President, while it doesn't seem to be the case here, many in America simply put George at one because he's "number one." Then there's obviously the peanut gallery that advocates tossing him toward the bottom because he was a slaveowner 

He's between 5-10 for me. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Pringles

[ConservativeElector2]

9 hours ago, Pringles said:

It’s ironic that in the modern day you have conservatives who will be either be more supportive of Federalists in the past, or Anti Federalists/DR’s. I think it’s quite indicative on one’s own ideological foundation. Statism vs Anti-Statism. Classical Liberalism vs Toryism (in the past sense.)

That may be true.

By no means I would argue that the Federalist Party was perfect - especially seen from a standpoint against government overreach and centralization. But I do believe that the Federalists were in fact the more harmonious party, that brought stability to America in contrary to the political division and hatred mostly fostered by Jeffersonians and other radicals on their side. Historically the Democratic Party developed out of the Democratic-Republican Party and was first and foremost responsible for the societal heat-up of the antebellum era. So I think it's plausible to assume that with the Federalists continuing to stay in power there had been no Civil War - at least not with the south. The Essex Junto guys and Northern Secession radicals of course were also problematic, but I think these guys had been more prone to compromise than the southerners decades later.

[Cenzonico]

I think setting the two term precedent was something good for America. What this comes down to is how we as Americans romanticize George Washington as a figure, which is why he can be considered overrated (I slightly do). For his time he was a figure that towered over everyone else, him being the first president just seemed natural. Over three hundred years on and that's still pretty much the case, we revere him for his service in the Rev and owe gratitude for him setting the precedents of what the president is. Imagining an America without him feels wrong. Do I think this should automatically grant him status as "best president"? No. Is it a good argument though? I think so.

[vcczar]

15 hours ago, ShortKing said:

He would have likely died in office (he died in 1799, two years into what would have been his third term)

I don't think he would have likely died. It was sort of a freak illness that killed him. He was a physically fit 67-year-old man. His death was as random as William Henry Harrison's death. Both deaths were avoidable and both were triggered by being outside in conditions that a senior citizen shouldn't be outside in. 

It's possible that he could have died during a 3rd time, but I wouldn't say it was likely. Any death in a 3rd term would probably have been random or something that developed after Dec 1799. If he avoided riding horseback in the freezing rain as president in Dec 1799, he likely would have made through the 1800 election, finishing his 3rd term.

[MrPotatoTed]

On 8/14/2023 at 5:04 PM, ConservativeElector2 said:

He should have run for a third term imho

He wanted the Presidency to outlive him, and not be a “for life” term.  The only way to achieve that was to set a precedent by walking away when he could have run again.

[The Blood]

Me after anachronously calling George Washington a pinko fellow traveler who polluted the nation with his Federalist Bolshevism (Democratic Republican patriots stay winning)

 

[pilight]

Considering how revered he is, there's no way he could not be overrated.

Leaving after two terms was probably for the best.  It would have been nearly impossible to remain free from the rising political parties for another term.

Washington as king would have ended the nation on his death.  He had no children and outlived all of his siblings.  It would have been an ugly succession crisis.  Even if Martha became queen regnant it just kicks the can down the road a few years, as she outlived all her children from her first marriage and all her siblings as well.