In the great rotunda of our nation’s Capitol hangs one of the most important paintings in our history, but it is often given scant attention by visitors.
The event depicted occurred on Dec. 23, 1783, more than seven years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Gen. George Wash
ington had returned to the Continental Congress after watching the British army finally leave New York. At that moment, Washington stood as the most revered man in America and likely could have immediately claimed the authority to govern or perhaps even rule the newly liberated nation as king, presi
dent, or whatever other title he might have chosen for himself.
Instead, he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the Continental army, setting the vital precedent of establishing civilian authority over the nation and the military. That is what the painting in the Rotunda portrays
and what makes it so important.
In all of prior human history, it had almost never happened that a victorious military commander voluntarily and purposefully gave power to civilians rather than keeping it for himself. Washington’s example has served our nation well for more than two and a quarter centuries.
Not shown in the painting is what Washington did several months earlier in anticipation of the event. In June of the same year he sent a Circular to State Governments, offering his thoughts and suggestions about what would be necessary for the United States of America to become, in his words, “respectable and prosperous, or contemptible and miserable as a Nation.”
In that circular, Washington identified four things he considered essential to the well being of the nation. These included “an indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head”; “A sacred regard to Public Justice”; and “The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment,” by which he meant assuring a more coordinated, trained and effective defensive force for the nation.
Washington’s fourth essential is more abstract but of no less importance, especially today. He considered it vital to establish “The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.”
This great man, who had made tremendous personal sacrifices and risked everything for the good of his country, who had ample global historical precedent for claiming power to himself for selfish reasons, instead called on his countrymen to make mutual concessions and sacrifice individual advantages for the good of the country.
Two things are sadly ironic about this in the context of our nation today. First, it is shameful that the name of this man has now so often become shorthand for unimaginable and unrestrained vitriol directed not toward him personally but toward what happens in the Capital city that bears his name. As in “What Washington doesn’t understand is…”, “It’s time to tell Washington …” or, “The evil that is in Washington …”
The second irony is how rarely Washington’s fourth essential is put into practice at any place in our society, be it Washington, D.C., state governments, talk media, public rallies, the blogosphere or those who hurl their scorn at “Washington.”
Indeed, it seems far more likely that instead of practicing “a peaceful and friendly Disposition” as a basis for solving problems, anyone foolish and naive enough to suggest something so preposterous would be met with howls of derision, terrible audience ratings, and given no chance of political success.
Yet we forget or unknowingly deride the counsel of Washington at our nation’s peril. Pick any controversial political topic today, and try to imagine how we would deal with it if we took to heart his words and personal example. Very likely, we would arrive at much better solutions and outcomes.
Washington embodied this knowledge in his approach as Commander of the Continental Army. He recognized that good ideas were not exclusive to him and that to earn the participation and support of others their input must be invited and respected. As David Hacket Fischer pointed out repeatedly in his book “Washington’s Crossing,” Washington continually sought out other ideas and information, included others in the decision process, and showed regard and courtesy even when there were disagreements.
Four years after resigning his commission, Washington had yet another opportunity to demonstrate these qualities of character, this time in his role as the unanimous choice to serve as president of the Constitutional Convention. Once again, he embodied precisely what he counseled others to practice.
In his role as president of the convention, Washington took almost no active part in the debates. Instead, he presided impartially, ensuring that all sides had opportunities for their voices to be heard, maintaining decorum and civility through the power of his personal example and the manner in which he presided, and encouraging people of different views to work together to resolve their differences.
Had Washington not conducted himself in this way, and had he not insisted on civility and fairness in the conduct of all the delegates to the convention, it is likely that the Constitution would have been a much different document or, more likely still, that there never would have been a Constitution and the nation itself would have soon fallen to internal division and outside interventions.
At no point in the convention did Washington seek personal or partisan advantage for his own views or for any group or “party” with which he may have been aligned philosophically or politically. Indeed, political parties as we now know them were not part of the Constitutional Convention, nor, for that matter, are they ever mentioned in the Constitution itself.
Washington would later, in his farewell presidential address, warn “in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party” and caution that “the common and 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.”
It is likely too much to ask that this “spirit of party” no longer play a role in our politics, and Washington himself recognized the natural tendency of people to unite in such entities. It is not, however, too much to ask that, regardless of party affiliation, citizens and elected officials put the good of country first and be willing to “make mutual concessions” and “sacrifice their personal advantage.”
Some years ago on a congressional pilgrimage to retrace the footsteps of those who struggled for civil rights, a young colleague shared that he hoped if he had been alive at the time he would have had the courage and compassion to join the freedom riders and others as they confronted racism and hatred with non-violence and justice. It is good, but not always easy if we are honest, to ask such questions and examine our own character and actions in the context of historical events.
But we do not need to look back in history and imagine how we might have acted had we been there then. We can instead look honestly at the events of the day and ask if we are meeting those events and conducting ourselves in a manner that will serve as an example when what we do now becomes history to a future generation.
We celebrate our nation’s independence on the Fourth of July, but starting revolutions turns out to be much easier than sustaining a nation. Washington knew this better than anyone.
If we want the history we are writing today to be looked upon kindly, and if we want our nation to be “respectable and prosperous” rather than “contemptible and miserable” in the future, a good place to start would be to measure our conduct today against the standards set by Washington in words and in deeds.
In Congress, in our Legislature, in the media and in our personal discourse, even and especially when we may passionately disagree, can we find it within ourselves to embody Washington’s ideal of “that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community”?
The answer to that question, and our ability or willingness to put these qualities into practice, may well determine what kind of history we are writing for ourselves and what sort of future we are creating for our nation and our children.
This is part of an occasional series of commentaries from Brian Baird, a Democrat who represented the 3rd Congressional District in Southwest Washington for six terms. He chose not to run for re-election in 2010, and now lives in Edmonds. Baird’s recently published book, “Character, Politics and Responsibility,” is available at lulu.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
