Question

I'm stuck on this question:

State why George Washington was pivotal to inaugurating the new federal government.

My guess is that because he wanted to government to be strong and also the fact that he he fought and commanded different battles. So he had real experience on the situation with war... I really don't know, this is just my best guess. Thanks!

Answer 1

Although George Washington never actually joined the Federalist party, the fact that he was so influential through his leadership abilities proven through various battles, him supporting the creation of a new federal government was highly favored amongst the rest of the founding fathers.

Answer 2

I read that already from some website on the internet...I came here to get help with the topic, not to receive copy and pasted information...

Answer 3

Sorry, thought that would help. :(

Answer 4

Washington was unique and important on several ways.

First, it must be remembered that at the time the young United States were riven by a painful dilemma: on the one hand, the near-disaster of the Revolutionary War, from which they had been saved only by inspired leadership (Washington in the field) plus the treasure of France, had revealed to everyone with a brain the deadly weakness of the confederate form of government. If the new country were not to quickly find itself a pawn of one European government, or a rag chewed and torn by many, she MUST find a way to speak with a strong, central voice. This was the driving force for the Constitutional Convention.

But on the other hand, they had just thrown out a king. Would they now re-install one? They had a deep and well-justified fear of tyranny, particularly in a young nation, where very little in the way of traditions or old power centers (like the church in Europe, or the guilds) could slow down a tyrant's acquisition of power.

Washington was the only man nearly everybody could imagine taking on the awesomely powerful new role of President, with the hugely expanded powers of the new Federal Government, and using them wisely and modestly. Indeed, I've heard it said that the office of President was essentially written for Washington, and had he not been available to take the role, it would not have been written at all.

Secondly, keep in the mind the Constitution is a remarkably brief document. It fits on one largish page! This is the ENTIRE scheme of the Federal government! Clearly it states only broad principles, and a whole lot of detail remained to be filled in by whomever first occupied the key roles. What does it mean for the President to appoint Cabinet Secretaries with the "advice and consent" of the Senate? What is "consent?" A formal vote of approval? Before or after appointment? Two-thirds' vote? Is it up to Congress to define the majority needed? Can the Senate revoke its consent, once given? Can it put conditions on its consent? The Constitution is silent on these things, and our traditional way of handling them is essentially what Washington decided to do. Again, he was about the only man everyone trusted to make wise decisions in doing so.

And they turned out to be pretty justified. Almost all the traditions he started lasted. Among the most important was his decision to forego standing for election after two terms. That unwritten tradition was so strong it took a cynical manipulator like FDR to break it and stand for a third term -- in 1940! It stood for 150 years.

The early republic also apeared threatened by the divisions of partisan politics. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists, who morphed into the Republicans (and later into the Democratic-Republicans and finally the Democrats), began their division over the issue of how much central power the Federal government should have, but rapidly found other things to despite about each other. Washington was remarkable in that he was known to have strong sympathies with the Federalist cause, but was nevertheless sufficiently trusted and revered by the anti-Federalists that he could work with them, and the antipathies remained buried.

His much less able success, John Adams, was unable to be equally conciliatory, and was far less respected, and the party conflict broke out in the election of 1800, still considered one of the nastiest ever.

It's a good question why Washington was considered so vital, and was essentially the only important person trusted more or less by everybody. Part of it is surely his military leadership in the Revolutionary War, or the fact that he didn't much represent any particular influential family or industry.

But apparently it goes well beyond that. Apparently the man himself had some kind of personal character that led people to trust him, even when he did not fully share their points of view. He was apparently some kind of ideal Enlightenment man: well-spoken but modest, loyal but never fanatical, smart without being absorbed by his own cleverness, practical but capable of appreciating and helping idealism. Every other one of the Founders acquired bitter enemies within his lifetime, and among historians since. Not Washington.