For Fear of an Elective King: George Washington and the Presidential Title Controversy of 1789 9780801471919

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction: The Title Controversy and the Early Presidency
1. An “Improper Distinction of Ranks”: The Per sis tence of Titles
2. The Third Body of Washington: Sovereignties in Confusion
3. Protecting the Presidency: A Republican Dilemma
4. Debating a “Doubtful Power”: The Legislative Battle Engaged
5. “Strange Contradictions”: The People Confront Status Distinction
6. A “Dangerous Vice”: Leaders under Scrutiny
Conclusion: The Path to American Demo cratic Leadership
Appendix
Notes
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

FOR FEAR OF AN ELECTIVE KING

FOR FEAR OF AN ELECTIVE KING GEO R GE WAS H I N GTO N A N D TH E P R ES I D E N T I A L T I T L E CO NTR OV E R SY O F 1 7 8 9

Kathleen Bartoloni- Tuazon

CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS Ithaca and London

Copyright © 2014 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 2014 by Cornell University Press Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bartoloni-Tuazon, Kathleen. For fear of an elective king : George Washington and the presidential title controversy of 1789 / Kathleen Bartoloni-Tuazon. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8014-5298-7 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Presidents—United States—History—18th century. 2. Forms of address—United States— History—18th century. 3. Executive power—United States—History—18th century. 4. Political culture— United States—History—18th century. 5. United States—Politics and government—1789–1797. 6. Washington, George, 1732–1799. I. Title. JK511.B39 2014 973.4'1—dc23 2014007803 Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the fullest extent possible in the publishing of its books. Such materials include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acid-free papers that are recycled, totally chlorine-free, or partly composed of nonwood fibers. For further information, visit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu. Cloth printing

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2 1

To Francesca and Raul, with gratitude and love

Co nte nts

Acknowledgments

ix

Introduction: The Title Controversy and the Early Presidency

1

1. An “Improper Distinction of Ranks”: The Persistence of Titles

13

2. The Third Body of Washington: Sovereignties in Confusion

30

3. Protecting the Presidency: A Republican Dilemma

57

4. Debating a “Doubtful Power”: The Legislative Battle Engaged

78

5. “Strange Contradictions”: The People Confront Status Distinction

110

6. A “Dangerous Vice”: Leaders under Scrutiny

132

Conclusion: The Path to American Democratic Leadership Appendix 167 Notes

169

Bibliography Index

245

227

159

A c k n o w l e d g m e nts

My story of the title controversy began with the archives and exemplary documentary editors of the First Federal Congress Project (FFCP) in Washington, DC. With unflagging good nature, Charlene Bickford, Kenneth Bowling, William (Chuck) diGiacomantonio, and Helen Veit answered my questions, gave lessons in manuscript reading, and shared my excitement with discoveries big and small. The high standards of the FFCP are testaments to their professionalism. My historian’s work ethic and understanding of research methods has blossomed in my time working with them. Ken Bowling also provided insights on the revolutionary era and the early Republic that saved me more than once from shallow or over simplified interpretations and challenged me to dig deeper. I am grateful for their time and efforts on my behalf. Richard Stott of George Washington University (GWU), in his calm and steady way, contributed immensely to my understanding of the era’s historiography. Other historians at GWU also proved inspiring and supportive. In par ticular, James Horton offered pivotal help on my argument, Dewey Wallace honed my understanding of religion’s place in eighteenth-century America, and Andrew Zimmerman happily brainstormed on theoretical concepts. Elizabeth Fenn, now at the University of Colorado Boulder, had faith in me from the earliest days and braved the hot Potomac summer to support me, as did Tyler Anbinder and Tom Long. And Denver Brunsman’s advice as I developed my manuscript has been as helpful as his collegial generosity has been appreciated. I am also grateful for the assistance given by Barbara Austen of the Connecticut Historical Society Museum, Elaine Grublin and the Adams Family Papers staff of the Massachusetts Historical Society, the Guggenheim Library, Leo Hershkowitz, James Hutson, John Kaminski, and Reverend James Smylie. In addition, I thank Jack Greene and the late Edmund Morgan, both of whom took me seriously and answered my inquiries. I also benefited from the incisive feedback given by my writing group, and Andrew Bell and Varad Mehta, especially, kept life lively through noisy ix

x

AC KNOW LED G MENTS

book group lunches and other excuses for winding history discussions. In addition, Judy Jashinsky, friend and history painter extraordinaire, thoughtfully collaborated in my research of eighteenth-century political cartoons. Family and friends, far and wide, encouraged me along the way. I thank you all. My relationship with Cornell University Press (CUP) has been particularly beneficial. My manuscript became much more completely realized through the excellent feedback of the anonymous readers, and I am indebted to them for the attention they gave to my project. Editor Michael McGandy and the entire team at CUP have been upbeat, clear-eyed, and patient. My experience with CUP has been everything I could have hoped for, and I am fortunate to have such a sterling group at my side. Finally, and most significantly, my husband Raul and daughter Francesca listened, discussed, and championed my ideas and dreams. This book is the culmination of the immeasurable love and support I have received from the home team, and I will never forget that. I offer my thanks, more than I can ever express.

FOR FEAR OF AN ELECTIVE KING

Introduction The Title Controversy and the Early Presidency

In the early spring of 1789, newly elected senators and representatives of the First Federal Congress arrived in New York City, committed to the implementation of the stronger federal government mandated by the Constitution. Within weeks, Congress became embroiled in a dispute over how to address the president—the Senate majority favored a lofty title, while the House stood unanimously and adamantly opposed to anything more than the simple and unadorned “President.” Suggestions for a title ranged from “President” to “His Majesty the President” to various forms of the frequently used “Highness,” including the Senate-endorsed “His Highness the President of the United States of America, and Protector of their Liberties.” Congress, the press, and individuals throughout the country debated more than thirty titles, most with royal overtones. In a world full of monarchs and with the United States struggling for respect on the global stage, the eventual resolution in favor of the modest “President of the United States,” without an exalted prefatory appellation, remained far from certain. Since the Constitution does not specify an executive title, the debate over whether or not to give the president a regal title represents an early consideration of constitutional intent, just as it also comprises the “first dispute between the Senate and the House.”1 The beginning of the constitutional era is so rich with the coming of parties and other meaty political 1

2

I NTRO D UCT ION

history that some historians have dismissed the controversy as a distraction. They have implied that the “hassle” of the title debate occupied precious time that should have been spent on more-pressing concerns, such as establishing revenues, organizing the government, or considering amendments to the Constitution.2 The fight over titles was hardly frivolous. The controversy explored an important constitutional question: How much like a monarch should the head of a republic resemble, particularly in the United States, whose revolution aimed at weakening the executive? America’s renunciation of monarchical government found one of its main expressions in the weak executives outlined in the revolutionary constitutions of the union and the states, executives whose power often was limited to executing the will of the legislature. Yet, six years after the Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War, the new government featured a singular central executive for whom some in Congress contemplated grand titles. Just what kind of a president did the people and the country want and need? And, how did the question of a presidential title relate to the widespread use of titles in America? When Vice President John Adams and others broached the question about titling the president, they instigated a conflict that marked a moment of revolutionary affirmation for the young nation and its Constitution. The presidential title controversy became the catalyst for a broadly based articulation of the fundamental nature of the country’s new representative democracy when Congress and a majority of the public rejected regal titles, monarchical trappings, and the form of society and governance they symbolized. With its outcome, the people of the early Republic accepted the presidency on the republican terms of a simple title and set the stage for America’s new breed of national executive, one who found no contradiction between democracy and strength. Although George Washington stood as the electors’ unanimous choice as first president and enjoyed extraordinary public support, the untried presidency aroused dissent and apprehension. The Constitution outlined a chief executive elected for a four-year term, but delineated no term limit. Consequently, the office alarmed many critics of the proposed government because of its resemblance to monarchy. The substantial though vaguely defined powers of the president led to conflicting interpretations of dangerous strength or disastrous weakness.3 On the one hand, Americans were apprehensive of the real possibility of “the President’s maturing into an uncontrollable and absolute monarch,” as Yale president Ezra Stiles worried.4 On the other hand, James Wilson, the leading author of the Constitution’s outline

I N T R O D UC T I O N

3

of the presidency and a champion of the office during ratification debates at the Pennsylvania Convention, confirmed that numerous Antifederalists opposed ratification partly because they dreaded corruption of the president by foreign monarchs or, closer to home, aristocratic cabals of Senate elites: “The Objection against the powers of the President is not that they are too many or too great . . . [but that] they are too trifling that the President is no more than the tool of the Senate.”5 The American people feared both monarchy and the political corruption that can accompany it. The conflict over a presidential title arose when these two fears aligned against each other in convoluted ways: foes of a regal title distrusted a strong, monarchical federal executive, while proponents worried about a weak and easily intimidated one that nonetheless had the sway of a monarch. Alarmed that a president would prove corruptible and a puppet of state elites or world leaders, John Adams and Senator Richard Henry Lee of Virginia advocated for a lofty title to boost executive authority. Even though a strong president also could prove unscrupulous and corrupt, they viewed all-powerful Senate dominance over an anemic national leader as the greater and more present danger. The other side of the controversy dreaded a despotic, all-powerful president. Abhorrence of monarchical rule and the resultant loss of representative governance fed a fierce resistance to an exalted honorific by Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania and Representative James Madison of Virginia, as well as the rest of the House.6 The motives of John Adams, especially, have long been misunderstood, and Adams interpreters often used his role in the title controversy as a proxy for one perceived character flaw or another—from an “instinct for unpopularity” to the pursuit of civic virtue and control of “his own unruly passions” to “sheer lunacy.”7 Others tried to exonerate his position in favor of a grand executive title by pointing to his years as an ambassador in the courts of Europe, which convinced him of the necessity of “titles and dignities, futile as they may be.”8 Still others deflected attention from Adams to Washington: the baseless “rumor had it that the General himself was of a like mind on the matter,” or the groundless speculation that Richard Henry Lee, whose motives in support of Adams also have been unclear, introduced the subject of an executive title “probably at the behest of Washington.”9 These approaches tended to depoliticize an issue with obvious political dimensions, ignored cultural currents such as monarchism, federalism, and the Republic’s emerging constitutional order, and confined the controversy to too few voices. More to the point, Adams evinced an almost overwhelming concern over the balance of power between the federal executive and legislative

4

I NTRO D UCT ION

branches, especially a Senate comprised of powerful elites with state-oriented agendas and believed only some form of “Highness” or “Majesty” would assure the presidency of the strength it would need. James Hutson astutely identified Adams’s fundamental concern during the title controversy as “the relative power of the state and national governments, the state governments being, in his opinion so strong that the United States was really no more than a ‘Composition of thirteen Omnipotences against one Omnipotence.’ ” Adams “found the main danger to liberty in the upper classes and meant to employ titles not in behalf of a conservative aristocracy, but against it.” This understanding recognizes his motive as more than a character flaw, a preoccupation with virtue or protocol, or a misguided love of monarchy. Adams’s apprehensions and those of Richard Henry Lee echoed unresolved questions regarding the presidency raised by Antifederalists during ratification. Their unease about a government of the powerful few and overriding fear of the corrupt dominance of Senate elites over a weak federal executive formed the crux of the push for a strong presidential title.10 The title dispute made palpable the apprehension that most Americans had of the new presidency. Each side of the controversy sought to protect the presidency from its own worst nightmare regarding the office. Arguments advanced by both sides of the title debate carried an echo of the conspiracy-laden discourse among revolutionary leaders that Bernard Bailyn identified. Trepidations over elite cabals and power-hungry leaders within the federal government became recurrent themes, but care and protectiveness often underlaid the suspicions. During the title controversy, these fears morphed into a vigilant concern throughout American society about how to craft an acceptable and successful president for the young Republic.11 The transcendent celebrity of Washington, America’s first president, complicated questions surrounding the new Constitution’s executive and represented both a blessing and a curse for the presidency. His rise to revolutionary glory, as Paul Longmore chronicled, culminated in songs, praise, and fervent cries of “God save great Washington.” With Washington’s resignation as commander in chief of the Continental army at the end of the war and his retirement to the mansion and farms of Mount Vernon, his sterling reputation and undeniable virtue became assured. By far the most famous and trusted American political personality of the time (perhaps, of any time), he commanded respect for the young nation and provided legitimacy to its republican experiment. Americans accepted and esteemed Washington and lauded his immortal fame. He journeyed from Virginia to New York City for his inauguration to crescendos of honors, enthusiasm, and celebrations not unlike the royal processions of English monarchs. As

I N T R O D UC T I O N

5

nearly everyone sang his praises, the tendency toward extravagant sentiment created comparisons that were counterrevolutionary for republican society— to biblical fathers, to gods of old, and even to Jesus Christ.12 Although the gratitude and acclaim of the American people bespoke their trust in Washington, his near deification within the popular culture allowed a conceptual collision of monarchical and popular sovereignties at the advent of the presidency. Within the theoretical ideal of popular sovereignty envisioned in the Constitution, as characterized by Edmund Morgan, the people have two “bodies” of sovereignty: they are both the rulers and the ruled, the governors and the governed, since they first elect their representatives and then are governed by them. Conversely, the era’s European monarchy rested sovereignty in the single “body” of a monarch who ruled by divine right. Even in England, where Ernst Kantorowicz traced the legal evolution of the “two bodies” of a king’s sovereignty (an immortal and divine body conjoined with a mortal body subject to human frailty and laws), the sacred “body” of sovereignty continued to distinguish a monarch.13 The closer Washington came to God, then, the more the reverence he engendered tainted the secular presidency with the hint of divine right monarchy’s theological absolution. The “two bodies” of popular sovereignty attached to Washington, just as they attached to all voting Americans. However, Washington’s popularity and godlike status within the popular culture gave him, and only him, the potential for a third “body”—the sovereign body of the divine right king. This possible third body of Washington confounded perceptions of the presidency and haunted America’s hard-earned popular sovereignty with the sacred justification and absolutism of monarchy. In another postrevolutionary contradiction, honorifics remained entrenched in American society and government, where state governors and the president of the Confederation Congress held the title of “Excellency.” A local political storm during the federal elections in Boston signaled the upcoming friction over titling the new president. The fracas revolved around whether newly elected federal House member Fisher Ames, who had not held a state office higher than representative, merited the distinction of “Honourable.” When the Massachusetts Centinel titled Ames as “Honourable” in early 1789, it precipitated an immediate outcry against such liberties since only state senators, not representatives, warranted that distinction. The Boston Gazette scrupulously sought to “render ‘Honour to whom Honour is due’ ” and refused to acknowledge the “Hon. Mr. Ames.”14 For the zealous guards of state prerogatives, the use of “Honourable” for a member of the newly formed federal House denoted the first step toward elevated federal status. The question of state versus federal dominion over the

6

I NTRO D UCT ION

honorific engulfed the Boston papers during the next month. Although the clamor died down, the Centinel continued using it for federal representatives and audaciously began titling senators as “Most Honourable,” while stateoriented critics of the usages seethed.15 Already regularly entitled “Excellency” and “General,” Washington as president invited the question of whether to address him on a par with or above governors. As the Ames ruckus illustrated, elite authority in the early Republic remained but provisionally earned and was constantly contested. Early America boasted a vibrant and dynamic society suffused with the sometime contrary traditions of monarchy, republicanism, democracy, and liberalism. In the postwar period, social rank reflected broadening egalitarian conditions, but rather than titles vanishing, more everyday Americans began using them. This cultural fluidity added tension to relationships and contributed to the widespread sense of uncertainty toward the presidency.16 The presidential title controversy formally began in Congress on April 23, 1789, with Senator Richard Henry Lee’s motion for a titles committee. The question of an executive title occupied the Senate and House in acrimonious deliberations for the next three weeks. Washington’s inauguration on April 30 and the pressure that both houses of Congress felt to pen replies to his inaugural address fueled the title dispute: the House elected to proceed quickly with a simple salutation in its reply, while the Senate vacillated as it contemplated salutations that reflected a grand office. On May 14, the Senate agreed to the address of “President of the United States,” capitulating to the precedent of an unadorned greeting set by the House and to the House’s stated wish for no title other than the designation of the “office expressed in the Constitution.”17 Because most of the legislative wrangling occurred behind the closed doors of the Senate and congressional committees and, additionally, because of slow mail delivery and limited newspaper coverage, news of the title debate spread over a prolonged period of time. As the public learned of and commented on the issue, the dynamic of the controversy as a political event and defining cultural moment stretched far beyond those three weeks of legislative discord. Although the dispute began in Congress, it spilled over to newspapers, public houses, personal letters, and even an unpublished play. The profusion of voices and perspectives illustrated that just about everyone had an opinion about titles and what they meant for the country. The title controversy thus had two phases—a legislative phase and a public phase—and both burned bright with the fire of strongly held convictions.

I N T R O D UC T I O N

7

Intense, insular, and less than a month long, the legislative phase occurred largely within the confines of Congress. The expansive and compelling public phase unfolded throughout the country over a longer period, as the people and the press examined questions of national character, federalism, and executive leadership and power. Throughout both phases questions about titles and authority in society, the relative strength and possible corruptibility of the president, and the respect due Washington (and its corollary, what would Washington do?) resonated as recurring themes. Congressional documents, letters, and public opinion from both phases of the controversy reflect not only the beliefs of founding leaders but also the evolving social and political thought on constitutional governance and the future of the country within the popular culture. Most of what is known about the dispute in the Senate comes from the detailed diary of Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania. His chronicle of the debates during the legislative phase of the controversy has proven accurate, although it quite naturally reflects his staunchly antagonistic view of pretentious titles. The “Senate Legislative Journal,” kept by Samuel Otis, secretary of the Senate, recorded committee reports, resolutions, and cursory information on Senate deliberations. However, neither of these sources was available to the public in April and May 1789. Maclay’s diary was a private document that his heirs shared with a few people after his death in 1804, but it remained unpublished until the late nineteenth century. As for Otis’s record, assistants transcribed his rough notes of Senate proceedings into a smooth version of the journal, which then went to the printer. The time lag was significant; in the fall of 1789, after the end of the first session, newspapers finally began publishing the Senate Journal’s proceedings from the previous spring.18 Debates in the House greatly enhance our understanding of the legislative phase of the controversy, as does a wealth of personal correspondence. Many senators and representatives (as well as John Adams and others) discussed titles in letters during both the legislative and public phases, but the delay in postal delivery meant that some of the early recipients received their mail as the legislature reached closure on the issue in mid-May 1789.19 A few newspaper editors provided regular accounts of the open House debates from their seats in the chamber. On May 11, the topic of titles exploded on the House floor, for the gallery’s edification and entertainment. Even then, only one newspaper, the Gazette of the United States, carried a detailed report. On May 14, the day after the Gazette release and three days after the eruption on the House floor, the Senate bowed to the wishes of the House and the legislative battle ended.20

8

I NTRO D UCT ION

Some public opinion about titles appeared in newspapers and letters during the three weeks of the legislative phase, but the volume rose sharply as news of the dispute and its legislative resolution spread. Commentary during the public phase of the title controversy proceeded at a fierce pace throughout the summer of 1789 and continued less frequently but with a simmering ferocity during the next couple of years. John Fenno of New York’s Gazette of the United States and Benjamin Russell of Boston’s Massachusetts Centinel (for whom Fenno had once worked), both ardent Federalists during ratification, printed the bulk of the arguments favoring a strongly titled central executive. Editors and papers with Antifederalist histories, such as revolutionary activist Benjamin Edes’s Boston Gazette, poured forth a deluge of articles in opposition to the very idea. Two other papers in Boston, the Herald of Freedom (published by Loring Andrews and Edmund Freeman) and the Independent Chronicle (published by Thomas Adams and John Nourse), leaned decidedly against regal titles. These three papers often presented a united front against Russell’s vociferous promotion of high-toned honorifics in the Massachusetts Centinel. Eleazer Oswald’s Independent Gazetteer in Philadelphia provided another indignant voice against lofty titles. Other newspapers throughout the country printed and reprinted articles on both sides of the debate.21 One of the striking aspects of the uproar over an executive title is that it did not separate opponents strictly by the Federalist and Antifederalist positions taken during ratification. In 1789, postratification partisan lines had yet to be drawn. Different perspectives on the relative weakness or strength of the presidency, rather than earlier positions for or against the Constitution, determined the sides of the title debate. Many of those who had been either Federalists or Antifederalists during ratification stood allied against a grand presidential title and the monarchism it represented, while other ratification-era Federalists and at least one Antifederalist, Richard Henry Lee, advocated an elevated honorific as a benign way to secure strong presidential authority capable of withstanding corrupt influences. All viewed themselves as resolute republicans. The passionate response to the consideration of executive titles guaranteed equally heated judgments of those most closely associated with the dispute. John Adams, who advocated “Highness” or “Majesty” to bolster presidential power, strained long-standing friendships, undermined his political influence, and sustained long-term damage to his reputation. During the controversy, Adams suffered the derisive “His Rotundity,” a title probably known then only among legislators and their confidants. (It became permanently attached to the historical Adams a century later, after the pub-

I N T R O D UC T I O N

9

lication of Maclay’s contemporaneous diary.) During the course of the controversy, Adams became infamous as “the Dangerous Vice,” a widely known and damaging sobriquet that he never forgot. The Senate’s advocacy of a regal title fed accusations that it tended toward a monarchal institution. Although the public often applauded the House’s opposition stance, all federal legislators came under heightened scrutiny, censured as elites with aristocratic pretensions. Washington, in collaboration with Madison both on his inaugural address and on the House reply to the address, played a little-noted and underappreciated role behind the scenes in the title dispute and helped spur its republican outcome. As Stuart Leibiger illustrated, Representative James Madison of Virginia served as the president’s closest collaborator during his first year in office and often functioned as Washington’s public voice. The record of the debates reinforces Leibiger’s point: Madison argued against a grand presidential title on the House floor and alluded to Washington’s opposition to an exalted appellation. Counter to claims from dubious sources from the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Washington never favored a grand presidential title (such as “High Mightiness,” which sometimes is suggested even today) and actively argued against one. He predicted the public outcry against monarchical affectations and wanted to avoid agitating his increasingly populist countrymen and women.22 The public viewed Washington’s example as the ideal of republican executive leadership. The general populace and most legislators retained an unshakable conviction that he wholly opposed regal titles and other affronts to republican governance. Washington remained removed from the legislative and public debates, although he occupied everyone’s mind since any presidential title would apply to him. The public’s high regard for Washington deflected the negative perceptions that adhered to others during the title dispute and ensured his reputation for restraint and disinterested honor that invited public trust. As a result, Washington buffered the presidency from attack as a monarchal institution that was dangerous to the people’s liberty. Because no thorough analysis of both phases of the fight over a presidential title exists, its interpretation by historians often says as much about the perspective of the interpreter as it does about the dispute. Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick touched on the confusion that this situation has produced. Although they acknowledged the prominence and “peculiar place” that the controversy occupied in the early days of Congress, they wondered at its significance: “The proportion which the episode properly ought to have . . .

10

I NTRO D UCT ION

remains something of a question.” Yet, the debates and emotions raised during the title controversy indicate that the new presidency had forced the people of the early Republic to find an acceptable balance between elite power and the people’s sovereignty. The heated scrutiny given to the choice of an executive title represented a vital and expansive exploration of American executive leadership.23 In the years preceding the Constitution and its plan for a singular executive, the Continental Congress had functioned with no national executive and the Confederation Congress had one of no substantive power. The Continental Congress essentially undertook the “executive and administrative responsibilities that had been exercised by or under the aegis of the king’s authority,” while the states retained Parliament’s powers of taxation, trade, and internal governance. The burdens of both executive and administrative responsibilities proved so onerous that Congress created executive departments in 1781, an action that resulted in an unforeseen yet inevitable loss of executive will as the departments took over the heavy lifting of “finance, foreign affairs, war, and marine matters.” Without the authority to tax or regulate trade, powers that were still held by the states under the Articles of Confederation, Congress floundered and became less effective during the Confederation years. The approach outlined in the Constitution, with stronger and largely separate legislative and executive branches, eventually became the lesser of two evils, preferred over the morass that the combined duties in one body had become.24 Of the massive scholarship on the early presidency, perhaps the most cogent observation on the state of executive authority in the period came from Ralph Ketcham: “When Washington took his oath of office in April 1789, then, far from everything being settled, virtually nothing was.”25 During the period from 1776 to 1789, America purposefully did not have an energetic executive. The Constitution’s terse outline of the presidency represented the extent of the Philadelphia Convention delegates’ ability to compromise about the controversial office. The ill-defined federal executive bequeathed by the framers in Philadelphia threatened, depending on one’s political perspective, to bring a host of despotic monarchical ills (so recently cast out of the states) to the new nation or to make the United States vulnerable to aristocratic intrigue at home and disrespect within the international realm of nations. Ketcham emphasized that this “unsettledness” in the new nation placed on its first presidents a burden to define executive leadership. For Ketcham, the philosophies these men held regarding executive authority influenced their leadership styles more than their political outlook did.26 For other

I N T R O D UC T I O N

11

scholars, the relationship among presidents, politics, party, and a president’s ability to influence the country’s political culture remains paramount. As Marc Landy and Sidney Milkis have argued: “The great presidents were great because they not only brought about change but also left a legacy—principles, institutional arrangements, and policies that defined an era.”27 Whether the emphasis is on the philosophical or political, conclusions about the American presidency often come down to the same bottom line: it is an office of immense potential executive power and authority, and some presidents did a better job than others interpreting the Constitution’s vision. Neither conception can be ignored—both deeply held principles and political acumen are essential for a truly great president, one who has “the capacity to serve as the very embodiment of great political principles, combined with a genuine reluctance to exploit the self-serving opportunities that capacity provides.” The Constitution’s vision of American executive authority involves, at heart, “the mutual interdependence of the leader and led.” This ideal of democratic leadership recognizes the inherent relationship between the president and the people. It also makes manifest the president’s unique role as both leader and led within Morgan’s “two bodies” construct of popular sovereignty, since the president is both executive leader of the country and an individual who is governed by the Constitution like everyone else.28 The title controversy demonstrated how the mutual interdependence of the president and the people played out in the unsettled world of the young nation. In 1789, much of America recognized the need for presidential authority and energetic leadership despite the ever-present alarm over the potentially abusive power or weak corruptibility of the office. Although his celebrity and demeanor encouraged an elite court-like atmosphere wherever he went, Washington counteracted these tendencies with his opposition to a regal title. He brought to his leadership both a widely admired perspective of republican forbearance and a willingness to take cues from the people. By mirroring the views of the majority of his countrymen and women in the title dispute, Washington encouraged public acceptance of the presidency, which added political legitimacy to the office. The consideration of titles for the federal executive resides at an early moment in the reciprocal evolution of the American presidency, democratic leadership, and popular sovereignty. In much the same way that government in the nineteenth century expanded and often worked best when it remained “inconspicuous” or “out of sight,” as Brian Balogh terms it, the presidency’s executive authority gained strength and public acceptance by avoiding the monarchical stigma of an exalted title. Balogh points out that

12

I NTRO D UCT ION

although the “United States did indeed govern differently than its industrialized counterparts, it did not govern less. Americans did, however, govern less visibly.”29 The earliest days of the Constitutional era imagined a similar course for the emerging nation’s executive. The republican resolution of the title controversy established an approach to leadership and authority that fledged the presidency’s power by not flaunting it. How the country titled the president reflected the “values and beliefs of ordinary citizens,” as well as the recognition by social and political elites of the irony that authority rested with acquiescence to egalitarian principles. This account of the presidential title controversy highlights the dispute’s role in public acceptance of the presidency and its effect on an emerging understanding of executive leadership in America. It examines the intersection of constitutionalism with the influences of both elite and popular cultures and assigns the title controversy its rightful place within discussions of the consolidation and expansion of executive authority in the early Republic.30 The rousing fight over an executive title and presidential authority occurred in a vigorous and increasingly inclusive postrevolutionary political America. The constitutional ratification process and the first presidential election brought a range of Americans into the political debates of the era. The public phase of the debate, especially, illustrates that federal leaders faced the scrutiny of an unusually alert, informed, and influential populace. Complex expectations and convictions drove competing viewpoints on executive authority and spoke to the growing and evolving public engagement with elite legislative politics.31 The title debate animated and shaped the new nation’s broadening political community. So much more than an obsession with etiquette, the question of titling the president challenged Americans to find an acceptable balance between power and the people’s sovereignty while assuring the country’s place in the Atlantic world. The controversy’s outcome favoring the modest address of “President” constituted an indispensable reckoning that affirmed the republican character of the fledgling president and federal government, even as the conflict formed the leading edge in increasingly partisan struggles over executive power. As such, the dispute is as relevant today as it was in 1789.

Ch a p ter 1

An “Improper Distinction of Ranks” The Persistence of Titles

The use of titles reflected America’s tangled past, and the decision whether or not to use a title could become a charged issue within the people’s often-fluid status relationships. Postrevolutionary society in the United States maintained an equivocal relationship with titles, and this ambivalence affected various aspects of life, ranging from common business transactions to the drafting and interpretation of the presidency within the Constitution. But whatever a person thought about titles, the fact was that appellations denoting military rank, occupational station, and political office were entrenched in the American experience. In parts of the country, “contests for captaincies or colonelcies in the militia were often more bitter than those for political office.” Titles of elite status, especially for governors and military officers, remained coveted by many in the early Republic and were used throughout an individual’s life.1 As the new government began, the question of title use by federal officials thus promised to be a serious issue to the American people. The postwar period heralded change as social rank and power became negotiated under broadening egalitarian conditions. But rather than titles vanishing in the years after the Revolutionary War, more everyday Americans began using honorifics. Even while titles for some nonmilitary officials fell by the wayside, “ ‘Mr.’ increasingly came into general use among adult white males,” and newspapers used “Esquire” for nearly any man without another 13

14

C H APTER 1

identifier.2 Throughout the country, ambitious Americans bootstrapped their way to prosperity and status using “opportunities to compete for an expanded number of electoral offices, to supply armies, to engage in privateering, to speculate in public securities, or to exploit the rapidly inflating currency.” The burgeoning number of electoral offices and other local positions often came complete with a title. As much as they suggested an unwanted holdover from the days of monarchical rule, titles quickly were shown to be a means of social, economic, and political advancement for Americans of all social strata.3 Title usage in America, part of the prehistory of the title controversy, indicates both the importance and fluidity of rank for a broad swath of society. The evolution of the use of “Mr.” in colonial Virginia well illustrated the complexity of social relationships before the Revolution. Although use of the title escalated after the war, “Mr.” became widespread by the 1770s in Virginia. “Mr.” is the abbreviated form of the word Master, later Mister, and originally signified a man of high social position. From 1489 to 1819, the Scots used “Mr.” for men of the peerage below the rank of earl. By 1600, the English used the title for “any man below the rank of knight and above some undefined social status . . . to include male descendants of landed gentry, descendants of knights, clerks, parsons, merchants, and persons who employed others.”4 When seventeenth-century English colonists came to Virginia, they “brought this rather loose use of ‘Mr.’ . . . and proceeded, almost immediately, to extend its usage to include many with no claim to social position by virtue of their blood or calling.” In one extraordinary but perhaps not isolated case of social status negotiation in the mid-1600s, a wrongly accused freeman was brought to trial and found innocent. The acquitted man then sued his accuser. In the subsequent ruling, the plaintiff received payment for damages and, in these later court records, was referred to as “Mr.” By proving his innocence and demanding retribution, the acquitted man established his respectability and gained a title.5 During the next century, the widespread use of “Mr.” among white males in Virginia diluted, nearly negated, the title’s connection to an aristocratic status based on birth. Virginia colonists expanded the usage of “Mr.” to include all members of the House of Burgesses who had no military title and all petit and grand jury members. “By 1776 almost any property owner, merchant or tradesman was likely to find that little two-letter symbol before his name in private correspondence and semi-public or public records.” The prevalence of “Mr.” in records and correspondence in the colony indi-

AN “IMPROPER D IST IN C T I O N O F R A N KS ”

15

cated that “social recognition based upon personal worth was more easily attained than in England . . . Virginia was creating her own landed gentry from her capable men, irrespective of old country connections, and doing this with the active cooperation and approval of those of her citizens who, by virtue of actual descent, were members of the landed gentry in the mother country.”6 Somewhat paradoxically, even though the wider use of “Mr.” provided evidence of an expanding gentry class in Virginia, the title also acted as a leveling device as it became more common for more white men. Although colonial American society tended toward varying degrees of social leveling, it also tended to be “less egalitarian in principle than it was in fact,” and contained hierarchical elements where “ranks were to be respected and maintained.” Courtesy books recommended that children address parents with titles such as “Sir” and “Madam,” churches often seated their congregations by rank, and college graduates attained the address of “Sir” with a bachelor’s degree and “Mr.” with a master’s. Military ser vice provided a rank for life, and thus ex-soldiers who went on to public office often found no need to use “Mr.” since they already had an established and preferred title.7 As early as 1776 in Maryland, “Mr.” also became the title prefixed to the “President” of the Convention of the Province of Maryland. In May of that year, fifty-two delegates from seventeen counties convened in Annapolis to consider provincial response to proceedings of the Second Continental Congress, organize and assess information from Maryland’s Council of Safety, and make other decisions in the portentous and revolutionary year for the American colonies. The convention delegates chose “the honorable Charles Carroll, Esq; barrister” as their president. On May 14, a committee of the whole reviewed recently “intercepted letters to governor Eden,” Maryland’s last royally appointed governor, and Carroll left the president’s chair to participate in the discussion. The group made no decisions that day, and “after some time spent therein, Mr. President resumed the chair.” The extensive proceedings of the Maryland Convention contain references to “Mr. President” throughout.8 More than a decade later and in another part of the country, Martha Ballard, a midwife in postrevolutionary Hallowell, Maine, used titles extensively for the men mentioned in her diary. These distinctions “reflected the hierarchical and formal structure of public affairs. Militia titles were especially important. Whatever else the Revolution had done, it had helped to reinforce that old distinction.” The local militia bestowed titles for local men, town meetings awarded offices that often had titles attached, and the judicial system “like militia musters . . . offered dignity to ordinary men,

16

C H APTER 1

who served as grand jurors, petit jurors, constables, clerks and referees, if not as judges.”9 Although Martha Ballard commonly minimized social distinction in her references to women of the community, she used a multitude of titles for the men in town. She frequently “referred to single women by their first names, to married women, unless they were black, simply as ‘Mrs,’ and to widows as either ‘Mrs’ or ‘wido.’ ” Ballard referred to men “as ‘Mr.,’ ‘Doctor,’ ‘Captain,’ ‘Esquire,’ ‘Reverend,’ ‘Lieutenant,’ ‘Colonel,’ or ‘Judge.’ ” Elites often had “more than one title to choose from, ‘Esquire’ as well as ‘Doctor’ Cony, ‘Judge’ as well as ‘Colonel’ North. And of course there were two kinds of ‘Captain,’ as in Captain Brown, who called the militia company together, and Captain Howard, who commanded the family sloop.”10 The widespread retention of military titles apparently also extended to African Americans who fought for the British during the war. As the Georgia Gazette reported in a riveting and widely reprinted article, “So prevalent has the practice of Duelling become lately, that Major Small and Capt. Qua, two men of colour, some few days past agreed to meet at a time and place appointed, each attended by a friend with a pair of pistols, to decide a dispute which happened between them.” The item included copies of the challenge from Captain Qua and the answer from Major Small and gave a colorful description of the captain’s rage and retaliation when the major failed to appear “from that natural desire of life which most men are fond of.” The article closed with the clarification that “both the gentlemen got their titles from the British during the late war.” Whether or not these men received official commissions from the British (a remote possibility), Small and Qua held fast their titles, however awarded, like prized possessions and probably used them throughout their lives.11 Like Ballard’s postrevolutionary Maine community and the dueling Major Small and Captain Qua, the populace throughout the country continued to use titles locally and expected appropriate honorifics to attach to America’s leaders. Former Virginia militia officer George Washington, no stranger to titles, had earned the military rank of colonel by the time he retired from his regiment in 1758 at the age of twenty-six. Then, in 1775, Congress appointed him commander in chief of America’s revolutionary forces. When Washington’s arrival in New York City that spring coincided with the entrance of William Tryon, the colony’s last royal governor, rival processions ensued as patriot officials treated General Washington with a ceremony to equal that of Tryon.12 By summer, the legislatures of New York and Massachusetts sent congratulatory letters on Washington’s momentous appointment, addressing him with

AN “IMPROPER D IST IN C T I O N O F R A N KS ”

17

what would become his official title (and a recurrent one for the rest of his life), “His Excellency.”13 Long-standing British precedent in the colonies, as well as an American desire to place Washington on equal terms with his opponents, dictated that the title “His Excellency” apply to him as the revolutionary nation’s military leader. Royal and colonial governors often held the title “His Excellency” and functioned as commander in chief.14 Although Washington’s title of “His Excellency” became a first for any American who had not been a colonial governor, use of the title was not that rare. It had applied mainly to royalty centuries earlier, but by the eighteenth century, “Excellency” was commonly used for ambassadors, ministers, governors, and other highly placed officials.15 Even in Maryland’s restored proprietary government, the colonial governor held the honorific of “His Excellency,” including the colony’s first native-born governor, Thomas Bladen. He swore his oath of office “by his Excellency Thomas Bladen Esq Governor and Commander in Chief in and over the Province of Maryland.”16 Despite the Revolution’s tide of antiexecutive sentiment, the new American states followed British precedent and appropriated “His Excellency” as the honorific for their governors, as if a titled governor helped place the states on equal footing with the monarchical nations in the rest of the world. By 1789, the governors of all but one of the states that had ratified the Constitution were addressed as “His Excellency,” and the title had been in use for years. Even Pennsylvania, which had no governor, used the title “His Excellency” for the president of its Supreme Executive Council.17 The one exception was Georgia, which used the title “His Honor” for the governor, as mandated in its constitution of 1777. Similar to military titles that attached to one for life, the honorific of “His Excellency” (or “His Honor”) remained in use by former governors.18 Although none of the state constitutions of 1776 or 1777, other than Georgia’s, specified a title for the governor, several states began entitling their executive as “His Excellency” shortly after statehood, while others moved to “His Excellency” from other titles such as “His Honor” over the course of time.19 The progression in Connecticut, for example, took about a year and a half. In 1776, the General Assembly of Connecticut referred to its governor as the “Honorable Jonathan Trumbull, Esquire.” In January 1777, Trumbull was still “His Honor the Governor.” However, sometime between December 11 and 16, 1777, Trumbull’s title changed from “His Honor” to “His Excellency.”20 Two years after the formal break with Britain, Massachusetts still had no constitution and continued to operate under its Charter of 1691. Although

18

C H APTER 1

the state’s first attempt to pass a constitution failed in 1778, the defeated document included language to title both the governor and lieutenant governor: “There shall be elected annually a Governor and LieutenantGovernor, who shall each have, by virtue of such election, a seat and voice in the Senate, and the stile and title of the Governor shall be His Excellency, and the stile and title of the Lieutenant-Governor shall be His Honor.”21 The successful Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, drafted by John Adams and often viewed as the model for subsequent constitutional efforts, specified the rejected version’s titles for the state’s top two executives. The 1780 document declared: “There shall be a supreme executive magistrate, who shall be styled—THE GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; and whose title shall be—HIS EXCELLENCY.” The inclusion of title language in Massachusetts from 1778 onward reflected the developing standardization and acceptance of titles for state executives.22 In the case of Virginia, a quick assumption of the title “His Excellency” for new governor Patrick Henry reflected the tide of public opinion. Two Virginia regiments that Henry had commanded sent a congratulatory message “to His Excellency Patrick Henry, Jun., Esq., Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia,” and stated: “May it please your Excellency: Permit us, with sincerest sentiments of respect and joy, to congratulate your Excellency upon your unsolicited promotion to the highest honours a grateful people can bestow.” Baptist ministers from Louisa County (the county Henry represented) sent greetings “to His Excellency Patrick Henry,” and extended “your excellency with our most cordial congratulations . . . Virginia has done honor to her judgment in appointing your excellency to hold the reigns of Government.”23 General Charles Lee also congratulated Henry, but he disdained the “sceptered tyrant” and “domineering hierarchy” of Britain. He objected to the provision of three successive terms for governor and to titles like “Excellency” and “Honour” for officers, perhaps implying the same for the governorship.24 Lee represented the minority, according to Henry’s grandson and biographer William Wirt Henry. Of Patrick Henry’s first term as governor, William Wirt Henry observed: “Public opinion was not ready, however, for the abolition of official titles, and as to the office of governor, the people were not willing that it should be less honored in a republican state than in a royal colony.” He also claimed that the governor assumed stately habits demanded by “public sentiment,” especially by the “aristocratic coterie which had pronounced him too plain for the office.” Governor Henry, “while retaining his simplicity and affability of manner, now assumed a dignity of demeanor . . . He seldom appeared on the streets of Williamsburg,

AN “IMPROPER D IST IN C T I O N O F R A N KS ”

19

and never without a scarlet cloak, black clothes, and a dressed wig.” Virginia’s first governor received the same salary as his royally appointed predecessor, and a thousand pounds of public money was allotted to refurbish his residence. Throughout the country, titles and a semblance of regal elegance for governors helped establish the authority and legitimacy of the fledgling states.25 Although not a state governor, Washington’s military achievements and the public’s regard for him assured his elevated status. When he resigned his sword and his role as the Continental army’s commander in chief after the Revolutionary War, he retained his military address of “General Washington,” and references to him as the “President General” appeared after his election to the presidency. Although many letters addressed to the civilian Washington at Mount Vernon in the 1780s began “Dear Sir” or “My dear Sir,” numerous others began with “Dear General” and “My dear General.” In addition, various correspondents continued to address him as “Your Excellency” in the salutation and more often in the body of letters, a practice that continued throughout his life.26 Given Washington’s standing and influence among the American citizenry, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others believed his attendance to be vital to the success of the federal convention (that they were promoting) that met in Philadelphia in 1787 to consider and draft the Constitution. Once assembled, the delegates unanimously elected Washington the Philadelphia Convention’s president and considered him indispensable to the country’s future. Pierce Butler, a South Carolina delegate to the convention, recalled that “many of the members cast their eyes toward General Washington as President” during those hot summer months.27 Although Washington served as president of the Philadelphia Convention, an official title of “His Excellency” did not attach to him. Unofficially, though, he retained the honorific. Major William Jackson, secretary of the convention, used more than one title when he wrote to Washington after the final adjournment about disposal of the convention’s papers: “Major Jackson presents his most respectful compliments to General Washington. . . . Major Jackson, after burning all the loose scraps of paper which belong to the Convention, will this evening wait upon the General with the Journals and other papers which their vote directs to be delivered to His Excellency.”28 Despite the cursory mention of an executive in the Articles of Confederation, the title “His Excellency” long had been associated with the president of the Confederation Congress. As early as 1781, Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson used the honorific in a letter informing Washington

20

C H APTER 1

about the election of Maryland’s John Hanson as the first president of Congress under the Articles of Confederation. Wrote Thomson: “I have the honor to inform you that this day pursuant to the articles of Confederation the United States in Congress Assembled proceeded to the choice of a President and have elected for the ensuing year his Excellency John Hanson.”29 In September 1787, the Philadelphia Convention used the title “His Excellency” for the president of the Confederation Congress (Arthur St. Clair) when it conveyed the proposed Constitution to Congress. The accompanying letter used the salutation “HIS EXCELLENCY, The President of Congress,” and closed, “With great respect, We have the honor to be SIR, Your Excellency’s most Obedient and Humble Servants.”30 Although the Constitution is silent on a specific title of address for the president, the Philadelphia Convention’s August and September drafts designated the title “His Excellency” for the new federal executive. During the debates at the convention, the delegates initially referred to the “head of the executive branch as the ‘national executive,’ ‘supreme executive,’ or ‘governor.’ ” However, midway through the convention, while the Committee of Detail deliberated, “delegates began calling . . . their proposed executive the ‘President.’ ” When the five-man Committee of Detail presented its draft of the Constitution on August 6, it stipulated the executive’s role as “president” and assigned the explicit title “His Excellency.” The designation of “His Excellency” may have been intended to put the president on at least the same footing as the state governors, and it reflected the title associated with the proposed executive’s mandate as commander in chief. The committee also may have been thinking of their presiding officer, the man they expected to be the first president under the Constitution—Washington held the title “Excellency” as a result of his revolutionary ser vice.31 Seven days before members of the Philadelphia Convention signed the final version of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, the provision for a presidential title of “His Excellency” remained in the language of the proposed Constitution. The convention delegates referred a draft of the Constitution to the Committee of Style on September 10.32 Article X, Section I of that draft began: “The Executive power of the United States shall be vested in a single person. His stile shall be, ‘The President of the United States of America’; and his title shall be, ‘His Excellency.’ ” This language was identical to the draft that emerged from the Committee of Detail on August 6, and there is no record that “president” or the title “His Excellency” engendered any dissenting (or other) discussion during the formal convention proceedings.33

AN “IMPROPER D IST IN C T I O N O F R A N KS ”

21

Yet, something happened to the stipulation of a presidential title in the Committee of Style during the time (September 10–12) that the committee revised the draft Constitution. Although the sweeping changes in the preamble, especially from “We the People of the States of New Hampshire . . . Georgia” to “We the People of the United States” garnered the most attention (and continue to do so), the committee made other changes, as well. The Constitution’s discussion of the executive (in the revision’s Article II, Section I) now began: “The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” The stipulations of stile and title were gone, although the office was still identified as “president” (capitalized in the final version). The Committee of Style continued to refine the draft based on input from other delegates until September 14, but the excised title language appears to have elicited no comment.34 It is intriguing to speculate about what happened in the Committee of Style regarding the different title language during those days in September, and speculation is all that is possible since no record of the deliberations exists. Committee member James Madison credited another member, Gouverneur Morris, with the final revision of the Constitution. Years later, Madison commended the “talents and taste stamped” by Morris on the document and recalled that “he was an able, an eloquent, and an active member . . . The finish given to the style and arrangement of the Constitution fairly belongs to the pen of Mr. Morris . . . A better choice could not have been made, as the perfor mance of the task proved.”35 One explanation of the elimination of a specific title for the president is that Morris and the other members of the Committee of Style realized that an executive title smacked of aristocracy, had no place in an egalitarian republic, and would make the Constitution a harder sell. Like the controversial subjects of a national bank, the power of incorporation, the location of a permanent seat of government, assumptions of state debts, and a national university—all discussed during the Philadelphia Convention but left to the First Federal Congress to resolve—a presidential title could threaten ratification. The Committee of Style also may have thought that specifying a presidential title appeared contradictory to the Article I prohibition of titles of nobility. However, given the wide use of “His Excellency” for governors, a third plausible explanation is that Morris and the committee eliminated the specific title “His Excellency” for the Constitution’s proposed executive because the honorific was too common and already in use by state governors and the president of the Confederation Congress. He or the committee

22

C H APTER 1

may have felt that some other title, to be determined later, should attach to the office of the new president. It is likely that all three explanations—that mention of a title for the president would inflame those opposed to the Constitution and to a stronger executive, that a presidential title would contradict the titles clause in Article I, and that the title “His Excellency” would not distinguish sufficiently the president from state governors and the president of the Confederation Congress—influenced the decision to eliminate the stipulation of the presidential title “His Excellency” from the final version of the Constitution. Morris and the Committee of Style may even have considered the statute’s wording in regard to Washington specifically. Given the esteem with which Washington was held and his own history with the title “His Excellency,” this frequently used appellation for high officials may have seemed inadequate for the role expected of him as the country’s first elected president. Washington’s stock had risen so high that it is not inconceivable that many more people than the elite few in the Committee of Style believed that the title “His Excellency” could not describe and perhaps even diminished his majesty. The Constitution first mentions titles in Article I, Section 9, which declares that “no Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States,” but critics found the section to be flawed because of the congressional consent clause that follows. This clause stipulates that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Section 10 then specifies that “no state shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility.”36 The Constitution’s congressional consent clause added an ambiguity that had not existed with the Articles of Confederation. That document forbid titles for both the Confederation and for the states, “nor shall any person, holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state; nor shall the United States, in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.”37 The Constitution’s congressional consent clause regarding titles followed a somewhat convoluted but politically flexible line of reasoning on the part of the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention. As Edmund Randolph explained to the Virginia ratification convention, the restriction against gifts or titles was intended to “prevent corruption . . . and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving or holding any emoluments from foreign states.” However, a diplomatic lesson from the days of the Revolu-

AN “IMPROPER D IST IN C T I O N O F R A N KS ”

23

tionary War illustrated why the consent clause gave Congress the power to allow the receipt of a gift. During the Revolution, “a box was presented to our ambassador [Benjamin Franklin] by the king of our allies [Louis XVI of France]. . . . if at that moment, when we were in harmony with the king of France, we had supposed that he was corrupting our ambassador, it might have disturbed that confidence, and diminished that mutual friendship, which contributed to carry us through the war.”38 Nineteenth-century historian Hugh Blair Grigsby shared the following anecdote about this diplomatic gift: “Dr. Franklin is the person alluded to by Randolph. In the winter of 1856, in Philadelphia, under the roof of a venerable granddaughter of Dr. Franklin, I saw the beautiful portrait of Louis XVI, a snuff-box size, presented by that king to the doctor. As the portrait is exactly such as is contained in the snuff-boxes presented by Crowned heads, one of which I have seen, it is probable this portrait of Louis was originally attached to the box in question, which has in the lapse of years been lost or given away by Dr. Franklin.” For the sake of beneficial diplomatic relations, Franklin accepted and kept the gift, a snuff box containing a miniature portrait of the king, and the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention allowed for similar future circumstances with the addition of the Constitution’s consent clause in Article I.39 During ratification, Federalists viewed the Constitution and the Article I titles language much like Virginia’s Edmund Pendleton, who was relieved to find that the Constitution promoted “no Title or Powers that are either hereditary or of long duration so as to become Inveterate.” Similarly, Massachusetts Federalist and future U.S. secretary of state Timothy Pickering approved “that titles of nobility, a great stimulus to ambition, and the most odious as well as most dangerous distinction between the members of a community, are pointedly excluded from this system.”40 Alexander Hamilton, as “Publius,” extolled the reassurances inherent in the titles stipulation: “Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.”41 However, Delaware Antifederalist Thomas Rodney regarded the titles language with dismay: “The Article in the Constitution against conferring any degree of Nobility, is an evidence that there is a Strong disposition in favour of it, otherwise Such an Article would have been unnecessary but this will be Too weak to Stand in the way when there comes an Opertunity of introducing it. For it is in vain to limit The Sovereign Power.”42 Antifederalist “Federal Farmer” was relieved that America had no hereditary

24

C H APTER 1

aristocracy, but wondered about a future under the Constitution, pointedly questioning the consent clause: “I do not see why congress should be allowed to consent that a person may accept a present, office, or title of a foreign prince, etc.”43 Several ratification conventions also found the consent language onerous and wanted it eliminated. On ratification, the delegates at the Massachusetts Convention proposed that “certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the Commonwealth.” One of the Massachusetts alterations removed any hint of congressional consent for titles: “Congress shall at no time consent that any person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall accept of a title of Nobility, or any other title or office from any King, prince or Foreign State.” New Hampshire used the same wording in its list of amendments and alterations when it ratified several months later.44 In South Carolina, the convention debated an “amendment totally prohibiting” the acceptance of titles, but it did not survive to the final list of proposed resolutions.45 When Rhode Island finally ratified the Constitution in 1790, its list of amendments urged that the still controversial consent wording be “expunged.”46 Whether the Constitution’s titles language elicited support, guarded approval, or varying degrees of censure, Thomas Rodney’s dismay and “Federal Farmer’s” concern about a future America of titles and their threat of monarchal power and aristocratic pretensions seemed to some Americans to be only a matter of time. Commenting on the priorities of candidates for public office, “a gentleman in one of the southern states” bemoaned “the evidence of facts daily repeated and strengthened, of the unhappy bias in my country for titles, small titles, and posts, small posts, and honors, great honors indeed to rule, to legislate, and govern a nation, with very little knowledge however, of nations, of governments, the principles . . . of law-making.”47 The expectation of looming monarchy occasionally found expression in biting articles that predicted what newspapers in the future would be reporting. A predictive fiction from 1788 declared “from the Dependent Chronicle, Of the year 1796, January the first,” and reported that a state convention had voted “that the Commonwealth shall cease to exist, and that the Senators and Representatives of the same, now in Congress, shall surrender the Sovereignty, and Government, to his Excellency the President of the United States, who is most humbly solicited from this time forward, to assume, and take upon himself, the stile, title and dignity of KING OF ALL AMERICA.” A few days later, a second piece of predictive satire (purportedly foreseeing an item from July 5, 1798) claimed “Intelli-

AN “IMPROPER D IST IN C T I O N O F R A N KS ”

25

gence Extraordinary” and announced: “Yesterday his most Superb Majesty the King of all America, celebrated the Feast of ALL FOOLS, being the festival of the Independence of the United States.”48 Contrary to forebodings of a royal America as a land of fools, John Adams expected that as the United States grew and matured, it would require and even welcome the stability offered by monarchical rule. Adams anticipated executive weakness and viewed coercive Senate cabals as a real threat under the Constitution, so he believed that a “species of Republick called a limited Monarchy” would be the country’s only “asylum against Discord, Seditions and Civil War and that at no very distant Period of time.” He assured Benjamin Rush that he had the people’s interests at heart. He “esteemed” monarchy and hereditary aristocracy as “institutions of admirable Wisdom and exemplary Virtue, in a certain Stage of Society in a great Nation. The only Institutions that can possibly preserve the Laws and Liberties of the People.” Adams realized that the turn toward limited monarchy was neither necessary nor acceptable to the American people yet, and that he would “not live to see it.” Nonetheless, he insisted: “Our Ship must ultimately land on that shore or be cast away.”49 In May 1789, while the controversy over a presidential title raged in Congress, Adams favored the titles of “His Highness” or “his Most benign Highness.” As he asserted to his former law clerk William Tudor with whom he often assumed an unguarded, affectionately paternal tone: “A diplomatic Title might govern a Colony, and Excellency might do for the denomination of a first Magistrate of Massachusetts . . . but the Title of an Ambassador, which is ‘Most illustrious and most excellent’ will not suffice for the Head of a great and independent Nation.” Adams (who, like other ambassadors, had held the titles of “illustrious” and “excellent”) believed the president needed a far more regal title: “His Highness or if you will his Most benign Highness is the lowest Title, that will comport with his constitutional Prerogatives and Support his State in the Minds of our own People or foreigners.”50 Adams went to such lengths to ensure the prestige of the presidency that French minister Comte de Moustier wondered if he was “just playing the outrageous American in the interest of the prerogatives of the President.” What Moustier observed was an earnest Adams, testing the boundaries of what was possible in order to stave off weakness and corruption in the presidency.51 Adams’s experience as a diplomat influenced his opinion about the need for a title and stoked his concern over an American president’s ability to withstand the influence of an aristocratic power bloc or other world leaders.

26

C H APTER 1

He believed that the greatest “danger in England . . . from the power of the crown” arose from “the Aristocracy’s having an over ballance.” He envisaged that the “king and people both would be prisoners to an oligarchic Junto.”52 As a result, boosting presidential power in future struggles with a manipulative Senate remained Adams’s priority. A grand title with some form of “Highness” gave the appropriate “impression on his own flesh and Armies as those of his friends or Enemies.” Just as important, a regal title “will support his Dignity with the state Governments or foreign Courts.” Adams realized the inflammatory nature of “Highness” or a title even more exalted, and he implored Tudor to be circumspect, “think of it—Speak of it—write of it, as you will—but dont compromise me.”53 After legislative resolution of the controversy later that summer, Adams, defiant in defeat, told Tudor he now favored “Majesty” as the best form of address to honor the people and empower the president. He believed that “the People themselves should honour their own Creation, if they mean to honour themselves and I hope the People will assert their own Supremacy, and give the Title of Majesty to the President. This is the lowest that can comport with his constitutional Dignity, Authority, and Power.” His reasoning again rested on his fear of elite power overpowering the president: “It is Aristocratical Pride alone, that feels itself hurt, by a distinction of the President. . . . the common People, if they understand their own cause and Interest, will take effectual Care to mortify that Pride by making the Executive Magistrate a ballance against it which can be done only, by distinguishing him clearly and decidedly, far above all others.”54 Adams sought a balance of powers and believed the Constitution deficient since it contained “not enough to make the first magistrate, an independent and effectual Balance, to the other Branches.”55 Adams also advocated “Majesty” to Rhode Island physician Jabez Bowen and to Benjamin Rush. To Bowen, he presented “Majesty” as the best way to promote the people’s empowerment: “You assert your own majesty, by giving your own representatives in the executive authority the title of majesty.” To Rush, he claimed that only such a grand title provided the necessary “proportion, to the Wealth, Power and Population of this Country and to the constitutional Authority and Dignity” of the office. Without a “Superior Title” for the country’s executive, the states would overshadow the federal government “in the Minds of our own People.”56 Adams even viewed titles as an issue of national security. He advanced “the prophecy that the want of titles may cost this Country fifty thousand lives and twenty millions of money, within twenty years.” He linked “Majesty” to the stature of the president among world leaders: “Many . . . think Highness

AN “IMPROPER D IST IN C T I O N O F R A N KS ”

27

not high enough, among whom I own I am one. In my opinion the American Presidents will soon be introduced into some farce or other in half the theatres of Europe and be held up to ridicule.” No less than the “Dignity of a Nation” was at stake, for “we shall never have our equal station with other nations untill our national executive, has a Princely title.”57 Adams became especially disgusted when “His Excellency” was broached as a possible title for the president, and he completely dismissed the unadorned title of “President.” Adams believed “His Excellency” to be too common for America’s chief executive: “All the world sees the absurdity and feels the humiliation of giving the title of excellency, which is only a provincial or diplomatic title of the lowest order.” He reasoned that “he will be ranked with ambassadors—if a provincial one, he will be leveled with governors of Colonies and Generals of armies but never with the first Magistrates of other nations.”58 When the movement for the title of “His Excellency” lost traction, Adams expressed relief that “thanks to common feeling, there was not a vote for it, but the two who made and Seconded the motion.” As for the simple appellation of “President,” it was far too conventional and prosaic since “there were Presidents of Fire Companies and of a Cricket Club.”59 Adams conceived of “Highness,” “Most Benign Highness,” and “Majesty” as a part of the landscape of governance and necessary to vigorous executive authority. As he explained to Benjamin Rush (who opposed lofty titles and took Adams to task over his stance), “There never was, and never will be, because there never can be, any Government without Titles and Pageantry. There is not a Quaker Family in Pensilvania, governed without Titles and Pageantry, not a School, nor a Colledge, not a Clubb can be governed without them.”60 He stressed that an exalted honorific for the American president should not be underestimated, and once meditated to Tudor: “The Efficacy of Things like these, which a philosophical mind would pronounce Trifles, on the Multitude of mankind is so decisive that Governments cannot be raised nor supported with out them. The Multitude think them trifles as well as the Philosophers—Yet both Multitude and Philosophers are absolutely governed by them.”61 Adams was not the only American who considered symbols of status and authority to be essential for the new nation. Shortly after the requisite number of states ratified the Constitution in the summer of 1788, William Barton, a Philadelphia lawyer and expert in heraldry, sent Washington “a short treatise on a subject little understood, or attended to, in this Country—namely, Heraldry or Blazon.”62 During the war, three different congressional committees considered designs for a great seal for the United States. Barton

28

C H APTER 1

served as an expert consultant for the last two and “suggested the heraldic or spread eagle . . . a symbol of royal authority since Roman times.” Barton intended the eagle to represent the “ ‘supreme power and authority of Congress.’ ” The Great Seal eagle quickly gained tremendous popularity, used far and wide to designate America.63 Now Barton wanted Washington to consider other heraldic traditions for the new federal executive. He argued that blazonry was more than a curiosity: “Coat-Armour, the Object of it, may be rendered conducive to both public and private cases, of considerable importance, in this infant nation, now rising into greatness.” Referencing Washington’s responsibility to the office that the whole country expected him to hold, Barton continued: “I trust that your Excellency, to whom every true American looks up, as the guardian of your Country and Patron of its increasing glory, will concur with me in the sentiment, that every institution which may assist in promoting the great ends of Government, is worthy of public Attention.”64 Barton stressed that his recommendation for a presidential crest intended no “improper distinction of ranks,” implying that a proper distinction of status and rank remained culturally acceptable in America. He saw no contradiction in his suggestion of a coat of arms and other heraldry for the chief executive and federal offices, and assured Washington that his proposal was meant in “the purest spirit of Republicanism” and need not set up “any thing like an order of Nobility.” Barton’s eagle already stood for the supremacy of Congress; he believed the presidency required a symbol of greatness as well. Washington’s obvious opposition to Barton’s suggestions is apparent in his uncharacteristically open and distressed response. He softened the blow of his discouraging answer by acknowledging “the practice of Congress and the States; all of which have established some kind of Armorial Devices to authenticate their official instruments.” However, Washington continued, “political sentiments are very various among the people in the several States, and . . . a formidable opposition to what appears to be the prevailing sense of the Union is but just declining into peaceable acquiescence.” He believed that any suggestion of distinction or elitism “would tend to reanimate the dying embers of faction, or blow the dormant spark of jealousy into an inextinguishable flame.”65 Washington’s understanding of critics of the Constitution was more than an intellectual position or an awareness of the bitterness of ratification debates. His insight had grown from a recent close brush with a threat to his reputation. He had became embroiled in controversy over his affiliation with the Society of the Cincinnati, an organization for Revolutionary War

AN “IMPROPER D IST IN C T I O N O F R A N KS ”

29

officers and their oldest male offspring, which raised concerns that the Cincinnati promoted the establishment of a hereditary elite: “I make these observations with the greater freedom, because I have once been witness to what I conceived to have been a most unreasonable prejudice against an innocent institution, I mean the Society of the Cincinnati.” Since he acted out of “pure motives” and thought it “a laudable thing, in erecting that memorial of their common ser vices, sufferings, and friendships,” Washington expressed surprise to find that “our conduct therein would have been unprofitable, or unpleasing, to our countrymen.”66 The criticism of the Cincinnati had gotten Washington’s attention, especially since he had not escaped censure. As he explained, “we have been virulently traduced, as to our designs; and I have not even escaped being represented as short-sighted in not foreseeing the consequences, or wanting in patriotism for not discouraging an establishment calculated to create distinctions in society, and subvert the principles of a republican government.” Washington told Barton that the “prevalent opinions” of the people deserved respect, and the prevailing winds blew against heraldry, special societies, or anything that smacked of class distinction. His lesson in the early Republic’s politics of character shook him deeply and confirmed what he often feared when he rose to the various challenges set to him by the American public— that not even he was immune from criticism.67 Washington realized from disturbing personal experience that the question of proper versus improper distinctions of rank had grown into a vexing political quagmire, one he strove to avoid as his inauguration neared. However, his new role and the office he would serve invited questions about presidential status that could not be deflected. The passion ignited by the consideration of an exalted executive title illustrated that Americans realized they were arguing about more than trifles. The social and political consequences of titles of distinction spoke to such salient issues as relations between Congress and the presidency, the president and the people, everyday citizens and elites, and the United States and other world powers. Speculation over a regal presidential title, in particular, set off a firestorm of controversy as America sought to clarify its vision of itself.

Ch a p ter 2

The Third Body of Washington Sovereignties in Confusion

George Washington’s presence—as a person, a leader, an icon, and the country’s first president—complicated both the question of a presidential title and interpretations of the place of the presidency within a government based on popular sovereignty. Americans believed that Washington would act appropriately as president, but his overwhelming popularity threatened to tilt the presidency toward monarchy. By 1789, he had occupied a unique place in the public consciousness for more than a decade and his celebrity had no equal within American society. Words like “regard” or “esteem” barely scratch the surface of the devotion directed toward the man commonly referred to as the father and savior of the country. The confluence of Washington and the presidency proved problematic as popular enthusiasm elevated him almost to a divinity and made him a king surrogate, especially during the war years and again in that momentous inaugural spring. Within a turbulent world fraught with contingency, Washington inhabited a province in the popular culture where “not all ties to that unwanted past” of monarchism had been severed and what remained “of the empire’s epistemological and behavioral norms” continued to shape the intricacies and contradictions embedded in postwar society and politics. The advent of Washington’s presidency and the catalyst of the title controversy provide a concrete example of how Americans acted in light of and effec30

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

31

tively mediated the clashing worldviews of aristocracy and democracy, power and liberty, and executive authority and popular sovereignty in the early Republic.1 The people certainly harbored a monarchical blind spot where Washington was concerned. And the inability to think clearly about the authority invested in Washington as the occupant of the executive office hampered efforts to implement a government that transcended the marks of monarchy. Indeed, despite common fears of incipient monarchism, Washington’s acclaim soared as his inauguration neared. One ode imagined various Roman gods fighting over the right to claim him: “How matchless and god-like he glows!”2 Another celebrated his immortal fame: “The name of Washington is grateful in our ears, and the sound will harmonize until time shall cease.”3 Such adulation, which seemingly aspired to make Washington a quasi-king, ran counter to the trend toward egalitarianism in postrevolutionary America. Nonetheless, it existed. Popular enthusiasm for Washington collided with constitutional ideals of popular sovereignty and confused perceptions of the nation’s new executive office. The Constitution outlines a government of an elected president and representatives and envisions a popular and secular sovereignty in which the people have two conceptual “bodies”: the people are both governors and governed, leaders and the led. This idea of popular sovereignty developed in mid-seventeenth-century England. The two bodies of popular sovereignty gave “a separate and superior institutional voice to the people, to protect them as subjects from themselves as governors.” This concept “never came into use in England, but it was reinvented in the American Revolution.” It came to fruition with the governance outlined in the new Constitution.4 Within the “inner dynamic of popular sovereignty,” the people as governors choose their president and representatives from the general population; the people as governed are subject to the Constitution and submit to the authority of the elected few and the government these officials serve. The president of the United States, an individual citizen (subject to and governed by the Constitution) who is elected to govern as the country’s central executive, contains both “bodies” of popular sovereignty, as does the office of the presidency. Congress and the Supreme Court are composed of the many or the several, as opposed to the one. Although fundamentally balanced with the chief executive, both the legislature and the judiciary function as groups rather than as individuals. Neither branch distills the two bodies of popular sovereignty into a single person as the presidency does.5

32

C H APTER 2

With George Washington as the first president, this fusion of the two bodies of popular sovereignty—the people as governors and as the governed—within the federal executive became complicated and overlaid with a third body of sovereignty, the sacred body of monarchical sovereignty. Monarchy, a form of governance that was decidedly not secular, vested sovereign authority exclusively in the single “body” of a king or queen who had been chosen by God and ruled by divine right. Although Americans trusted Washington not to abuse his executive power, they also, paradoxically, likened him to a king, a god, or both. This public ardor for Washington transformed the figurative pedestal where he had been placed into an altar or a throne. Allusions to the regal and even the divine brought Washington and the presidency perilously close to the sacred body of divine right sovereignty.6 Both pagans and Christians legitimized the belief that monarchs somehow channeled the will and blessings of a god or gods. In Western Europe, the “sacred character of royalty,” that “kings were considered divine beings, or at the very least descended from the gods,” derived from ancient, pagan Germanic beliefs that the blessings of hereditary and noble princes brought victory on the battlefield, abundant harvests, and even a miraculous healing touch. “ ‘Since the Goths . . . used to attribute their victories to the blessed influence emanating from their princes, they did not wish to look upon them as simple men; so they gave them the name of Ases, that is, demigods.’ ” The rise of Christianity brought an end to the pagan undertones of divine leadership, but also legitimized a new era of sacred dynasties. Christian rites of consecration sanctified royals as they ascended the throne and reinforced a monarch’s mystical, immortal, and divine nature.7 Although English views of monarchy followed a trajectory different from that of France and other European kingdoms and conceptualized the monarch as both mortal and divine, the sacred body of monarchical sovereignty remained essential to a British understanding of the throne. English jurists in the sixteenth century interpreted and modified monarchical sovereignty by giving the king “two bodies” of sovereignty, recognizing both a monarch’s divinity and his mortality. Under laws first codified during the Tudor period, English royal sovereignty incorporated two bodies into one person— the physical and mortal “body natural” conjoined with, and indivisible from, the mystical and immortal “body politic.” English jurists “divided the king’s person into two bodies, one symbolic, eternal and divine, the other concrete, time-bound and human. The division had provided a means by which one part of the government (Parliament) could hold the nominally supreme part (the king) to a given standard of conduct.” This interpretation

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

33

influenced the seventeenth-century explorations of the two bodies of popular sovereignty.8 The English throne, or office of the king, continued to retain an immortal “body,” the body politic, which was capable of imbuing a noble (and mortal) individual, usually of hereditary lineage, with divinity. “For the King has in him two Bodies, a Body natural, and a Body politic. His Body natural . . . is a Body mortal, subject to all Infirmities that come by Nature or Accident . . . But his Body politic is a Body that cannot be seen or handled, consisting of Policy and Government.” The immortal body politic comprised a monarch’s public (rather than private) “body” and was “constituted for the Direction of the People and the Management of the public weal, and this Body is utterly void of Infancy, and old Age.”9 This separation of the British royal sovereignty into two conjoined bodies, and especially the recognition of a “body politic of the realm,” eventually allowed a concrete governing body, the English Parliament, to emerge as the representative of the monarch’s body politic. When this happened, the “king as the head and the lords, knights, and burgesses as members [respectively, the head and limbs of the body politic] were constituted ‘in Parliament.’ ”10 Nonetheless, “England remained an hereditary monarchy in a Europe which was overwhelmingly monarchical.”11 After the members of Parliament unseated one king (Catholic James II) for another more to their liking (Protestant William of Orange) during the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Parliament’s influence rose and the monarchy’s power and majesty gradually declined. By the mid-eighteenth century, the stable yet bland reigns of the first two Hanoverian kings (George I and George II, both foreign born) produced a British monarchy that “was still powerful but only sporadically splendid and assured.” Both George I and George II sat somewhat uncomfortably on their thrones, plagued by the periodic claims from members of the ousted Stuart line of James II ( James Edward and Charles Edward Stuart, often called the Old Pretender and Young Pretender, respectively). “However unreal it proved in the event, the spectre of the Stuarts made the first two Hanoverian kings defensive.” As a result, George II stayed close to court or spent every summer in Hanover, and neither he nor his father ever visited Wales, Scotland, the Midlands, or the north of England. “Irritated, or austere, or self-conscious, or simply absent, only rarely did either man seem entirely assured and happy in his new inheritance.”12 Philosopher David Hume’s midcentury pronouncements deriding the monarchy reflect this low point for the British Crown. In 1741, he asserted that “the mere name of king commands little respect; and to talk of a king

34

C H APTER 2

as GOD’s viceregent upon earth, or to give him any of those magnificent titles, which formerly dazzled mankind, would but excite laughter in everyone.”13 Hume continued on the same theme in 1755: “The practice [of the royal touch, a touch that could miraculously heal], was first dropped by the present royal family, who observed that it could no longer give amazement to the populace, and was attended with ridicule in the eyes of all men of understanding.”14 During this same period, however, George II’s divine right to the throne held strong against the claim of the Young Pretender. When Charles Edward Stuart invaded Scotland in 1745 in an attempt to regain the Crown for the Stuarts, clergymen and the press vigorously confirmed George II’s claim of divine right and “buried him under a weight of sermons and written polemics on behalf of the Hanoverian dynasty. They argued that George II, like George I, owed his throne to Divine Providence and to the people’s choice: that both his kingship and the celestial protection he enjoyed were earned by his maintenance of British civil liberties, laws, property and domestic peace.”15 In the interpretations of political writers as well as in folk beliefs, “divine right attitudes” persisted within eighteenth-century British culture. Political thinker Henry St. John Bolingbroke, whose work influenced many American revolutionaries, wrote the widely read The Idea of a Patriot King (written in 1738, published in 1749, and reprinted in 1754). He imagined the king as a charismatic reformer and asserted that “the office of kings is . . . of right divine, and their persons are to be reputed sacred.” Often biting in his condemnation of political corruption, Bolingbroke thought the solution to this affliction was “that romantic ideal, the Patriot Prince, who should govern as well as reign, yet govern above parties and factions, in harmony with a loyal and independent commons.”16 Among everyday people, many believed in the miraculous, divinely linked healing powers of royal coins, ribbons, and other tokens well into the nineteenth century.17 Divine right regained broad acceptance and popularity in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Some historians argue for a continuity of cultural values and perspective on ideas like divine right over the “long” eighteenth century, which can range from the 1660s to well into the 1800s. Others discount the long-eighteenth-century approach, carve up time into different, smaller chunks, and contend that the resurgence of older concepts, such as divine right monarchy, comprised a “revival” rather than “continuity.” Whether continuity or revival (and they need not be mutually exclusive), the resurgence of divine right in England transformed the older concept, a transformation of the past that met the needs of the present.18

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

35

With native son George III wearing the crown, the sacred body of the king and a royal’s divine right to rule proved to be more resilient and appealing to the British public mind than Hume had imagined. When George III (the first of the native-born Hanoverian kings) ascended the throne in 1760, popular attitudes toward the monarchy soared in England. The rise of pomp, splendor, and George III’s popularity coincided with ascendant English nationalism during the 1780s. National pride and a renewed enthusiasm for the monarch revived the people’s love of pageantry and brought a “new and more secular twist” on the concept of the king’s two bodies. Monarchical rule by divine approval became part of a larger, “more personal foundation for monarchy.” George III “forged an image for himself that was a cunning and influential blend of ritual splendour and winning domesticity.” Emphasis on his vulnerability as a man, in addition to his elevated status as king, brought a “newly invented royal magic” that emphasized the king’s uniqueness and divinity, as well as his normalcy.19 Just as popular and monarchical sovereignties vastly differ from one another, so do their respective “bodies.” The two bodies of popular sovereignty recognize the people as the source of a nation’s sovereignty—the people as subjects and the people as leaders. The two bodies of British monarchical sovereignty separate the supreme national ruler into a mortal individual subject to laws and imperfections and into a divine representative who is God’s lieutenant. The link to divine right monarchy’s singular and sacred body of sovereignty remains clear. Yet, as different as these formations are, overlap exists. Both bodies of popular sovereignty and the mortal body of British monarchical sovereignty are essentially secular and converge in their view of a popular leader or royal as a human being subject to laws and frailties. However, the second body of a British monarch’s sovereignty retains the royal’s sacred connection to God and continues to gently but firmly embrace the older concept of rule by divine right. Although most Americans would have blanched at calling their new president a king, the adulation of Washington threatened both popular sovereignty and a secular, republican presidency with the sacred body of monarchical authority. Despite wide enthusiasm and national confidence in his election as president (and in the providential blessing that sired him), Washington and only Washington embodied, if you will, three “bodies” of sovereignty. Washington possessed the two bodies of popular sovereignty that all Americans who voted incorporated, but he and he alone also held the potential to manifest a third body of sovereignty, the sacred one associated with royal divinity.

36

C H APTER 2

As both president and popular culture idol of supernal celebrity, Washington represented the two secular bodies of popular sovereignty—he was both a citizen who was subject to the Constitution and the elected leader of the nation as its president—and also brought to the executive office a whiff of the sacred body of monarchical sovereignty. This third body of Washington raised discomfort about the monarchical direction the office might take and, adversely, fueled calls for a regal presidential title. In addition, the Constitution’s lack of term limits for the president raised the threat of monarchism for the office of the new executive. These and other unresolved issues on the nature of the presidency remained as the Congress convened and Washington prepared to take office.20 The American people first placed Washington (Figure 1) on a pedestal during the heady days of the Revolution when patriotic fervor ran especially high. Yet, twenty years earlier during the French and Indian War, the Reverend Samuel Davies suggested that the twenty-three-year-old colonel George Washington had been singled out by a heavenly hand: “I may point out to the public, that heroic youth, Col. Washington, whom I cannot but hope Providence has hitherto preserved in so signal a manner, for some important ser vice to his country.”21 Davies, like others of his time, used “Providence” as synonymous with God.22 By January 1776, Davies’s prediction about Washington and Providence seemed prophetic as revolutionary America transferred “praise from George III to George Washington,” and “the fall of the king and the rise of the general were complementary historical events.” American patriots, citizens and soldiers, sang of “god-like Washington.” The rousing and popular song “War and Washington!” ended with a description of Britain’s King George, “his minions trembling round, dismounting from his throne” to “pay homage to America and glorious Washington!”23 A prostrate King George presented a satisfyingly scandalous image, and by midwar, a political cartoon of “Washington on a throne and George III on bended knees before him” reportedly surfaced.24 Phyllis Wheatley, the celebrated African American poet and ex-slave from Boston, crowned him king in a poem from 1775. She admitted to Washington: “Your being appointed by the Grand Continental Congress to be Generalissimo of the armies of North America, together with the fame of your virtues, excite sensations not easy to suppress.” Wheatley’s poem invoked heaven’s attention and blessing: “Celestial choir! Enthron’d in realms of light, Columbia’s scenes of glorious toils write.” She concluded with an image of Washington (“Proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

37

Figure 1. George Washington (1781), by Charles Willson Peale, ca. 1788. Lelia A. and John Hill Morgan Collection (1943.64), Yale University Art Gallery/Art Resource, New York.

side”) as king, “A crown, a mansion, and a throne that shine, With gold unfading, WASHINGTON! be thine.”25 Washington’s popularity grew despite the vicissitudes and length of the war effort. In the summer of 1781, Abbé Claude Robin, a French army chaplain, likened Washington to God in the eyes of the people: “In all these extensive states they consider him in the light of a beneficent God, dispensing peace and happiness around him. Old men, women, and children, press about him when he accidentally passes along, and think themselves happy, once in their lives, to have seen him.” Joseph Mandrillon, a visiting French merchant from Amsterdam and observer of the American scene, had a case of hero worship for Washington, “the greatest man that America has ever produced, and one of the most celebrated that ever existed!” He was just one of many: “The public veneration for General Washington is the precious fruit of the most severe examination of his conduct.” Everywhere, Washington was “feted, admired, caressed,” and the people

38

C H APTER 2

followed him with torches, sang songs of praise, and celebrated with public illuminations.26 Both the press and the pulpit—the era’s two great influences on and arbiters of the people’s opinions—participated in this public worship. Newspapers emphasized Washington’s name by printing it in capital letters, and clergymen used capital letters to distinguish him in their sermons. In addition, Congress commissioned a medal in 1776 commemorating his victory at Boston (although it was not struck until 1786), universities bestowed honorary doctorates on him, and stage actors spoke eulogies to him. In Pennsylvania’s farm country, a German almanac appeared in 1779 with a medallion portrait of Washington and the words, “Des Landes Vater” (Father of His Country).27 In France, shortly before he died in May 1778, Enlightenment luminary Voltaire ordered a Washington medal struck. Voltaire designed the medal— the earliest Washington medal actually produced—in collaboration with Benjamin Franklin. The translated inscription on one side reads: “Washington combines in a single union the talents of a warrior and the virtues of a philosopher.” Given Voltaire’s view that the best ruler would be a benevolent king (with an enlightened adviser) or some other powerful and wise despot, he seemed to be anointing Washington, warrior and sage, for the position of America’s king.28 After the Yorktown victory in the fall of 1781, Washington fervor reached such fever pitch that an occasional voice of caution entered the fray. The Connecticut Journal proclaimed that “all panegyric is vain and language too feeble to express our ideas of his greatness,” and anointed him, “WASHINGTON, THE SAVIOUR OF HIS COUNTRY!”29 These accolades invoked a warning from “Mary Meanwell”: “Let us not make a GOD of him!” Yet, “Mary Meanwell’s” admonition confirmed the widespread and passionate impulse to deify Washington.30 A report of Washington’s visit to Albany asked rhetorically: “Who is more WORTHY our LOVE and ESTEEM, than the GUARDIAN and SAVIOUR of his Country!”31 Only one man was America’s savior, and everyone knew who he was. With peace in the air by the summer of 1783, General Nathanael Greene, commander of the Continental army’s southern campaign, observed to Washington: “You were admired before; you are little less than adored now.” South Carolina’s governor, Benjamin Guerard, told him that independence came “through you by the permission of the Director of all human events.”32 A widely circulated excerpt from a “gentleman in St. Croix” described a celebration in Butler’s Bay in memory of Lexington and Concord and “the day on which American blood was first shed in the cause of liberty and

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

39

mankind.” Glasses were raised to “the great, the illustrious Washington, the Father and Saviour of his Country; who so nobly began, and so gloriously finished the work of our independence—God bless him.” Toasting him as “Father” and “Saviour” and comments about blood being shed for mankind link Washington, whether casually or consciously, to sacred Christian language and images. He could not escape biblical comparisons.33 American independence, Washington’s leadership, and “the conviction that God had given in the victory a sure sign of his approval of the new nation” became inextricably linked.34 In the spring of 1783, Reverend Ezra Stiles wove together the threads of Washington, independence, and God’s blessing. According to the Congregational minister and president of Yale, independence “was sealed and confirmed by God Almighty in the victory of General WASHINGTON at TRENTON, and in the surprizing movement and battle of PRINCETON.” Stiles perceived the “energetick influence of divine providence” in American victories by “a Washington, inspired by heaven.” He believed that “God’s American Israel” was destined to be a beacon of freedom and opportunity to the world.35 In his sermon, “The United States Elevated to Glory and Honor,” Stiles portrayed Washington as God’s “anointed” and as pivotal to American success. Like Jesus emerging triumphant from the desert, Washington stood resolute in hard-fought victory: “O WASHINGTON! How do I love thy name! . . . upheld and protected by the Omnipotent, by the Lord of Hosts, thou hast been sustained and carried through one of the most arduous and most important wars in all history.” With words that call to mind the selfless Jesus, “But thou, O Washington, forgottest thyself, when thou lovedst thy bleeding country,” he contrasted Washington with “the VENAL GREAT— who think every thing, even virtue, and true glory, may be bought and sold, and trace our every action to motives terminating in self.” Stiles found something “singularly glorious and venerable thrown by heaven about thee,” and proclaimed: “Thy fame is of sweeter perfume than Arabian spices. . . . listening angels shall catch the odour, waft it to heaven, and perfume the universe!”36 In the bloom of the postwar period, Washington’s persona as savior became interwoven with the idea of American exceptionalism—that America had a special destiny and providence had sent the country an almost sacred leader to deliver it into the future. Preachers exclaimed that “God was involved inseparably in America’s destiny as he had been involved in Israel’s.” Stiles and his peers often compared America and Israel; references similar to his “God’s American Israel” included “New-English Israel” and “American Zion.”37 Washington exemplified the American Moses, Gideon, and even

40

C H APTER 2

more often Joshua, Moses’s chosen successor and the warrior who led the Israelites into the Promised Land. In fact, “very few heroes of ancient Israel would escape comparison” with him.38 Washington was “the ‘great preserver,’ and ‘so great a deliverer.’ ” The Universalist evangelical Reverend Elhanan Winchester gave “hearty thanks to the great JEHOVAH, the Lord of Heaven, and Earth, who has been pleased to raise you up as our Deliverer.” These references continued far beyond the Revolutionary War years. In August 1789, several months after Washington’s inauguration, Isaac Stearns of Massachusetts described the United States as “our Israel” and the president as “almost Deified.”39 The postwar era brought the publication of two epic poems that celebrated America’s grand destiny and Washington’s role: Timothy Dwight’s The Conquest of Canaan (1785) and Joel Barlow’s The Vision of Columbus (1787). Both men served as brigade chaplains during the war (Dwight in Connecticut, Barlow in Massachusetts) and were part of a cadre of writers— recognized as the Hartford, or Connecticut, Wits—who attempted to capture the “spirit of the new nation.” While Dwight remained a theologian and became an influential president of Yale, Barlow followed a path away from the ministry to become a lawyer, radical political essayist, and diplomat.40 Dwight’s Conquest of Canaan interpreted the American revolutionary experience as a reenactment of the struggle and deliverance of Joshua and the Israelites to Canaan, the land of milk and honey.41 Sometimes categorized as “more remote from the realities of the day than the writing of his friends,” Dwight’s Canaan expressed the clergy’s prevalent interpretation of the war and America’s salvation.42 Although Dwight protested that he did not have Washington in mind as Joshua, he admitted: “They are both great and good Characters, acting at the head of armies, and regulating the chief interests of their countrymen.”43 The poem’s dedication to “his Excellency, George Washington” belied his protests: “Commander in chief of the American Armies, The Saviour of his Country, The Supporter of Freedom, and the Benefactor of Mankind.”44 Barlow’s Vision of Columbus told the mythic story of America in nine “books,” defending it to an imprisoned and disenchanted Columbus. Barlow saw the good and the bad in America and came out on the side of an expansive, though imperfect, “new empire on the western clime.” Throughout, Barlow treated Washington as a “great” and stalwart hero able to inspire the souls of his men, and his Vision of Columbus contained “the first clear-cut treatment of Washington in heroic verse.” Barlow’s epic vision contained a sophistication that depicted Washington with more restraint than was typical

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

41

for heroic verse of the time. Yet, Barlow closed Vision’s Book 7 by invoking the “Immortal Washington,” whose acceptance of his metaphorical patriot son imparted a heavenly benediction on all Americans.45 Historian J. Franklin Jameson argued that the Revolutionary War brought important traceable changes in American culture (“the mere fact of independence caused the American to think and feel differently about America”) and stated that Barlow’s poem, Stiles’s sermon, and presumably, Dwight’s Canaan and other exultant works “could not possibly have been written twenty years earlier.”46 However, the notion of a special destiny for America and the Western Hemisphere had deep roots that stretched to antiquity when a “theory of the westward movement of the arts—Translatio studii [transfer study]—perhaps began in speculation . . . on mythical realms to the west.”47 Independence assuredly brought the American people an exhilarating sense of national pride (not to mention relief ), but faith in America’s grand destiny preceded the jubilation of the Revolution. By the eighteenth century, the idea that civilization and learning moved from east to west (much as the sun moves ever westward across the sky)— from the Middle East to Greece to Rome to England—informed a triumphal interpretation of history, progress, and the British Empire. In America, this interpretation had a strong grip on the public imagination. The idea that America, the most western of lands, held power and promise, new ideas and vitality, had “the reassuring familiarity of a motto or the ending of a fable.”48 A few years after his presidency, John Adams recalled: “There is nothing . . . more ancient in my memory than the observation that arts, sciences, and empire had traveled westward; and in conversation it was always added since I was a child, that their next leap would be over the Atlantic into America.”49 Although American Protestants of the late eighteenth century no longer viewed New England as the metaphorical “city upon a hill” that would set an example for Old England’s churches and congregations, the Great Awakening’s evangelicalism brought a renewed sense of personal and cultural destiny throughout the American colonies. The religious revivals of the 1740s expressed “a revivification of the view of the New World as the place where God was breaking forth new light for the world at large.”50 The Anglican bishop George Berkeley’s Verses on the Prospect of Planting Arts and Learning in America (written in 1729 and published in 1752) succinctly summed up this theory of civilization’s growth and western progress, and the inevitability of America’s glorious fate: “Westward the course of empire takes its way.”51 The Rising Glory movement of the 1770s became the latest manifestation of belief in the country’s future renown. Rising Glory germinated in

42

C H APTER 2

American colleges. It took its name from A Poem, on the Rising Glory of America, written by Hugh Henry Brackenridge and Philip Freneau, and was read to “great applause by the audience” at Princeton’s commencement ceremony in 1771.52 Rising Glory celebrated America as the ultimate freedom, a freedom that allowed men to realize their full potential. America was the “new world” and “final destiny of all things,” where “a scene of recent wonders rise. New states, new empires and a line of kings, High rais’d in glory.”53 Throughout the 1770s and 1780s, young writers and budding orators saluted America’s destiny and, like William Smith (provost of the College of Philadelphia and publisher of the American Magazine), found it joyful “to anticipate the rising Grandeur of America; to trace the Progress of the Arts, like that of the Sun, from East to West . . . THAT Day hath even now more than dawned upon us.”54 During and after the Revolution, Rising Glory served as the backbone of Independence Day addresses. In 1778, South Carolina state representative and future historian David Ramsay used Rising Glory as the theme of his first public oration, delivered in Charleston on July 4. Ramsay brought Heaven, the West, and a glorious American destiny together in what became one of his most popular speeches: “Happy America! whose extent of territory westward, is sufficient to accommodate with land, thousands and millions of the virtuous peasants, who now groan beneath tyranny and oppression . . . perhaps it is the will of Heaven, that a new empire should be here formed . . . which will rise superior to all that have gone before it, and extend human happiness to its utmost possible limits.”55 While Americans may have felt differently about their country after independence, they also felt the same, only more so. Americans were more celebratory, more enthusiastic, and more certain of the special destiny of the country, its people, and Washington’s providential leadership. Victory wrought a Rising Glory crescendo that continued into the Confederation period. However, as the new nation settled into its postwar infancy and Washington retired to Mount Vernon, expressions of national pride became more than individual moments; they became part of the broader struggle over who would have a voice in the country’s politics. The 1780s saw clashes that involved different interest groups and classes of people over postwar realities like regional economic difficulties and local political infighting. This strife heralded the beginning of “a national political culture [that] opened up a contest over what was being represented and who should represent it.”56 Addressing these troubles and the accompanying

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

43

sense of disenchantment, Congregationalist minister and Harvard president Samuel Langdon preached a sermon in 1788, entitled “The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States,” which found deliverance in Washington and ratification of the Constitution. Langdon cited the “God of heaven” and the “signal interpositions of divine providence” that bestowed “a WASHINGTON” on the country. Echoing Rising Glory thought, he exhorted Americans to accept the new government and grasp their destiny: “RISE! RISE! to fame among all nations . . . The way has been plainly set before you; if you pursue it, your prosperity is sure; but if not, distress and ruin will overtake you.”57 Washington’s reputation, unlike America’s, remained relatively untarnished during the postrevolutionary letdown and, in comparison, stood out in marked contrast. By 1787, organizers and participants considered his presence at the Philadelphia Convention to be the indispensable and legitimizing ingredient. In that year and the next, Rising Glory writings appeared that linked him to the nation’s greatness. “Thoughts on American Genius” defended America against accusations of inferiority from buffoons like the “naturalists and literati in Europe.” A poem declared: “Great Washington! Thy founding fame inspires, The heav’n-rapt bard, with more than human fires.” An ode on the adoption of the Constitution exclaimed: “Washington is ours” and “An Empire’s born!—Let cannon roar.”58 By the late 1780s, Washington and the nation were one. He symbolized union and performed a steadying role for the country at a precipitous time. With the approach of his unanimous election and inauguration as president, the tendency toward coronation and deification that had subsided somewhat with his retirement from military and public ser vice escalated to new heights. In the fall of 1788, the cover of Bickerstaff’s Boston Almanack displayed an illustration with the descriptors: “The Rising Glory of the American Empire, Washington and Liberty forever.”59 America, the ultimate stop in the western progression of arts and empire, had resurrected its savior, and he now was no longer a deliverer of victory but of nationhood itself. The occasional American perceived a dangerously excessive enthusiasm for Washington. Presbyterian minister Samuel McCorkle (a Scots-Irish Pennsylvanian who moved to North Carolina and founded the University of North Carolina) cautioned against the tendency to deify Washington, the “God-like man.”60 During ratification, alarm at the Constitution’s singular executive occasionally spilled over onto Washington. Maine’s vocal newspaperman Thomas Wait scathingly expressed his concern to George

44

C H APTER 2

Thatcher, Massachusetts’s delegate to the Confederation Congress from the Maine district: State sovereignty will be but a name—the whole will be “melted down” into one nation; and then God have mercy on us—our liberties are lost.—The vast Continent of America cannot be long subject to a Democracy, if consolidated into one Government—you might as well attempt to rule Hell by Prayer. . . . But let us not trouble ourselves on this head—for, should state sovereignty disappear, my word for it, there is no danger of a Democracy—no, no—King George, and the Convention over which he lately presided, has prepar’d something quite as different from this, as one could have wished for, or reasonably expected.61 Wait did not worry in a vacuum. For some citizens, unlike Wait, a regal executive held irresistible appeal. As Washington’s stock rose largely unabated in the 1780s (despite the initial outcry over, and his continued association with, the Society of the Cincinnati), celebrations of his birthday escalated and exacerbated tendencies to view him as a surrogate king and his upcoming administration as the republican equivalent of a monarchy.62 In the American colonial past, holidays including festive balls, dinners, and musket volleys to mark the birthday of monarchs, littered the calendar. In the eighteenth century, American colonists celebrated the birthdays, among others, of Queen Anne, Queen Caroline, and King William III; the arrival and departure of royal governors; and other holidays that underscored colonial ties to the British Empire and its royal family. Although they occurred most frequently in the major port cities, colonial celebrations of royal holidays became widespread. By the 1740s, “loosely standardized royal holidays had been successfully grafted onto British North America.”63 The quick rise and popularity of Washington birthday celebrations indicate that there was a broad awareness of such observances—even after the Revolutionary War—that reached beyond “collective memory” or “detailed newspaper reports” from the past.64 Although the celebrations of Washington’s birthday differed in some of their specifics from royal holiday pomp, all included an assembly or dinner for elites and the participants understood how to proceed. Royal birthday celebrations had paved the way. As early as 1782, a Philadelphia newspaper reported that citizens of Fredericksburg, Virginia, celebrated “the birth night of his excellency general Washington” with a “brilliant” assembly of “sixty-odd ladies and an equal number of gentlemen.”65 By the next year, reports of birthday celebrations

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

45

spread “with every public and private demonstration of joy.” At Richmond, thirteen cannons were fired twice and the evening’s assembly included more than two hundred celebrants.66 In Maryland, “this being the first year that the birth day of our great and worthy General hath been announced to the Public,” military and other gentlemen along the eastern shore gathered at Cambridge for a dinner, toasting, and entertainment. The Maryland event included a song that portrayed Washington as the “god-like” guardian of Freedom, “secure in the arms of the Chieftain celestial on earth.”67 In more sedate Boston, “an elegant dinner” concluded with toasts of “gratitude to our illustrious chief !”68 A serendipitously timed royal nativity probably added to the acceptance and enthusiasm over the celebrations of Washington’s birthday. In the spring of 1782, a son and heir, the dauphin (“the precious Mark which Divine Providence has just given us of his Goodness”), was born to the royal family of France, America’s closest ally. The French minister announced the event to the Confederation Congress assembled in Philadelphia, and a birth announcement from the French monarch ran in a Philadelphia newspaper. It included a reminder of the expected celebrations of the dauphin’s birth: “You will easily be convinced of the Pleasure with which we shall receive every Proof that you may give of your Sensibility upon this Occasion.”69 Effusive celebrations, congratulations, and published accounts of the festivities followed throughout the summer.70 In Trenton, the governor, assembly, and gentlemen of the area gathered for dinner with toasts and the discharge of weapons “with every mark of respect, joy and congratulation.” Since the French army under Rochambeau was nearby, a dinner celebration in Baltimore happily included the Chevalier d’Anmour and several other Frenchmen.71 At West Point on a beautiful last day of May 1782, General Washington and the Continental army troops put on a display under the supervision of French engineer and army major Jean-Louis-Ambrose Villefranche. A massive open-air pavilion (“a rural temple”) overlooking the Hudson arose on 118 pillars. Decorated with flowers, greenery, and emblems “significant of the union and splendor of the allied nations,” the edifice accommodated more than five hundred seated guests, an orchestra, and serving tables. Music, toasts, fireworks, and artillery discharges from various brigades scattered over the countryside celebrated the dauphin’s birth into the night.72 The festivities peaked in mid-July with a celebration in Philadelphia attended by “Washington with his suite” and hosted by the Chevalier de la Luzerne, minister plenipotentiary of France, on the grounds of his home.

46

C H APTER 2

Completed under the design and direction of Peter C. L’Enfant, an elaborate hall “in the Italian manner,” a courtyard with “groves formed into arches and hung over with glass lamps,” and surrounding galleries of statuary accommodated more than fifteen thousand guests.73 The party comprised “the most agreeable, and delightful entertainment ever seen or exhibited on this continent.”74 Remarkably, the festivities “brought together many of the leaders of the Revolution from its early pamphlet protest of the 1760s through the congressional and military battlefields of the 1770s and 1780s.” This once-in-a-lifetime occasion provided the springboard for L’Enfant’s career, which included the design of Washington, D.C., and the renovation of New York City Hall into Federal Hall, where Congress held the title debate.75 After fetes such as these, for an infant French prince that no one had seen, birthday celebrations for Washington appeared tame by comparison. By 1784, songs and poems dedicated to Washington appeared and reappeared in newspapers and joined “the usual demonstrations of joy” surrounding his birthday.76 A popular song sung by “a select club of Whigs” proclaimed: “Tis WASHINGTON’S birth day, Let joy abound . . . His glory shall proclaim, Till time is done.” As one of the Whigs confirmed, “After the Almighty Author of our existence and happiness, to whom, as a people, are we under the greatest obligations? I know you will answer to Washington.”77 During the years of Washington’s retirement, notices of birthday festivities in his honor appeared consistently.78 In South Carolina in 1786, local artillery and infantry honored “the illustrious hero and saviour of his country” by performing “their various evolutions in honor of the Day.”79 That same year, coffeehouse patrons in Philadelphia published a special birthday ode to “a Chief as good as brave, Who emulates all-gracious heav’n, And conquer’d but to save.”80 In February 1789, just weeks before his inauguration as president, another ode heard fame “Proclaiming Washington’s most sacred name” and invoked heaven, prayers, blessings, and immortality in a few breathless verses.81 Attitudes toward Washington during the Confederation years and in the spring of 1789 were broadly and unambiguously positive, and not merely socially and politically strategic. The contested nature of the early Republic’s political culture often appeared as rising partisanship and class-based rivalries at events associated with holidays, including Washington’s birthday, and in subsequent newspaper reportage. Washington-oriented functions increasingly offered elites the opportunity to be patriotic and enhance their favored status through greater access to him and to other elites. At the same

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

47

time, however, “none but Washington could inspire such unanimity across social groups.”82 Even most critics of the national experiment supported Washington’s presidency, held their tongues, and hoped for a successful central government (and speedy adoption of amendments). Washington had attained a national and global fame greater than any other American (only Benjamin Franklin came close), arguably greater than anyone else in the Western Hemisphere. Washington’s celebrity fed his popularity and placed him at the apex of what has been called America’s civil religion. The concept of a civil religion recognizes a shared religious belief at the core of the public’s understanding, a mutual religious interpretation of events within a culture: “There actually exists alongside of and rather clearly differentiated from the churches an elaborate and well-institutionalized civil religion in America,” which consists of a “collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sacred things.”83 The American Revolution was “in itself a religious experience, a hierophany collectively manifested and received, which provided the fundamental basis for American civil religion as we know it.”84 Acclaimed and idolized during the shared experience of the Revolutionary War, Washington became inextricably “linked by popular acclaim to an act of mythic foundation and a sacred story of origins” and, by founding the nation, he founded its civil religion. “With [his] aloof and reserved demeanor . . . Washington, by remaining a sort of archetypal stranger, was able to absorb the waves of collective meaning which swept over him.” As uncomfortable as he may have been with his own near deification, he became “the sacramental center which at once pointed to the spiritual power of the fledgling nation and embodied it.” Through a gentle irony, the more Washington represented the collective one, the more he resembled everyman, and his act of founding became everyone’s founding effort.85 One of the most compelling and irreverent political commentaries on the religious subtext of Washington’s upcoming presidency featured him arriving in New York as Jesus Christ in a caricature entitled “The Entry.” Direct comparisons of Washington to Jesus were rare, although as we have seen, the press, pulpit, and populace trod close to the edge with accolades such as “deliverer” and references to his selflessness and virtue.86 In “The Entry,” which appeared in early April 1789, probably over the Palm Sunday weekend, someone in the city created a political cartoon depicting Washington as Jesus riding on the back of a donkey and entering a New World Jerusalem to meet his fate. To underscore the Washington-as-Jesus metaphor, a devil spouted

48

C H APTER 2

slyly wicked verse and Washington’s aide, David Humphreys, led the way, thus alluding to Christ’s lineage within the house of David. Unfortunately, no known copy of this cartoon exists.87 Instead, a colorful, contemporary description survives from Major John Armstrong, writing to his good friend and fellow former Continental army officer, General Horatio Gates. Armstrong served as an aide to Gates during the war and they formed a lasting friendship, a bond that explains the frank and confidential nature of the exchange. The two soldiers are somewhat infamous for their involvement in the so-called Newburgh Conspiracy: Armstrong precipitated the threat of mutiny by disgruntled army officers encamped at Newburgh, New York, in 1783, when he authored letters outlining their grievances (especially delinquent back pay and pensions for war time service) and calling for action. He composed these Newburgh addresses in Gates’s quarters, probably with his superior’s knowledge and approval. Washington himself defused the tense situation with a timely and poignant speech to his men, recalling them to their duty and the selfless sacrifice it often demanded.88 Armstrong wrote about “The Entry” on Tuesday, April 7, the day after the Senate achieved a quorum with the arrival of a twelfth senator (Richard Henry Lee) and finally counted the votes for president and vice president. The day before the vote count (April 5) had been Palm Sunday, the beginning of the Christian Holy Week that commemorates Christ’s crucifixion and subsequent resurrection on the following Sunday, Easter. Palm Sunday memorializes Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem, riding on the back of a donkey. He met joyous, adoring crowds who had heard of his recent miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead and laid palms and garments in his path.89 New Yorkers were well aware of Palm Sunday and the story’s imagery, whether their own religious faith recognized the holy day or not. Both Anglican/Episcopalian and Roman Catholic religions celebrated the Easter season, including Palm Sunday. During the Renaissance, the observations had been elaborate and were the type of festivities about which Puritans and Evangelicals knew but did not approve. In addition, other faiths were more than aware of Palm Sunday. Even Quakers, who had held meetings in and around New York City since 1657, knew of the holiday. In fact, seventeenth-century British Quaker leader James Naylor’s Palm Sunday exploits were so brazen that they became known well beyond the Quaker community. On the holiday in 1656, “he re-created Christ’s entry into Jerusalem by riding into Bristol on an ass, accompanied by adoring men and women singing hosannas.”90

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

49

Armstrong considered “The Entry” to be “disloyal and profane” and presented it as a perfect example of the wasp’s nest of commentary that Washington could anticipate: A Caricature has already appeard calld. “the Entry” full of very disloyal and profane allusions. It represents the Gen. mounted on an Ass and in arms of his Mulatto Man Billy [David] Humphreys leading the Jack and Chaunting Hosannas and Birth day odes. The following Couplet makes the most of this device. The Glorious time has come to pass When David shall conduct an Ass I mention this circumstance only to illustrate my point that wit spares nothing—neither Washington nor God—and that the former like the latter, will have something to suffer and much to forgive.91 Although Armstrong did not mention a devil, eighteenth-century historian Benson Lossing mentioned that it was the devil who spouted the scandalous couplet: “The Devil appeared prominent, and from his mouth issued the words: ‘The glorious time has come to pass, When David shall conduct an ass.’ ”92 As with the best political cartoons, the message worked on more than one level. The unnamed cartoonist’s intentions may have been “disloyal and profane,” as Armstrong believed, or they may have been more nuanced. Placing Washington within the Palm Sunday story was also deeply, wryly sympathetic and recognized that the adoration of the miracle worker may precede harsh suffering of the adored one in the name of love. In Washington’s case, love of his country corresponded with Jesus’s love of humankind. At the same time, the doggerel verse indicated the cartoonist’s dim regard for the public’s tendency to place Washington in the position of savior. That the artisan could readily draw such a multifaceted comparison between Washington and Jesus within the imagery of Palm Sunday illustrated the ease, and the pitfalls, of deifying the man. As Armstrong observed the scene unfolding around him, he understood the challenges Washington faced. The unrestrained excitement over the presidentelect’s imminent arrival generated both concern and derision among “sceptics who doubt its propriety and wits who amuse themselves wh. its extravagance. The first will grumble, and the last will laugh and the Presidt. should be prepared to meet the attacks of both with firmness and good nature.” Portentously, Armstrong also mentioned that talk about presidential titles already had

50

C H APTER 2

begun: “All the world here and elsewhere are busy in collecting flowers and sweets of every kind to amuse and delight him in his approach and at his arrival and even Roger Sherman has set his head at work to devise some style of address more novel and dignified than Excellency.”93 Finally getting those historic votes counted on April 6, 1789, after more than a month of waiting for a quorum, released a cascade of pent-up anticipation. New York resembled bedlam and Washington’s reception promised “much form and something approaching royal Solemnity.”94 By the day Washington arrived, a little more than two weeks later on April 23, Virginia finance official William Davies mentioned that “the attention of every body seems so taken up in preparing to receive the President of the United States . . . that very little business is done.” Pennsylvania representative Henry Wynkoop reported that “the Citty is to be Illuminated this evening, all Ranks of People appear interested in this important Day the Streets are swept clean and the whole Citty in the Garb of Hollyday.” In a delightful turn of phrase, Senator William Maclay said simply: “The Whole City are on tiptoe of course.”95 The caricature “The Entry” appeared in the midst of New York’s escalating whirl. Armstrong thought Washington would need a steady demeanor and a sense of humor to survive his next role in the country’s founding and agreed with the cartoon’s metaphor when he commented that Washington, like Jesus (or, as Armstrong says, “God”), would have “something to suffer and much to forgive.” That Armstrong easily made the connection between the two saviors highlights how Washington’s place within the American Republic called forth his sacred third body and threatened the secular institution of the presidency. Consciously or not, those who worried about the presidency morphing into a monarchy sensed the religious aspect of the political tightrope the nation walked with the celestially blessed and popular Washington as its first president.96 Judging by the scope and spirit of the celebrations that met Washington in New York City, as well as the lavish processions and ceremonies he encountered in towns along his route from Mount Vernon, the Atlantic Seaboard joined with New York in the clamor over the country’s new president. The elaborate ritual, decorations, and entertainment that welcomed Washington resembled the pageantry associated with the royal progresses of English and European monarchs, even as the organizers greeted him as the virtuous hero of their fledgling Republic.97 Although Washington’s journey has been described as “an extended rite, eight days long and spontaneously performed, of legitimacy,” little of the spontaneous attended his

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

51

passage.98 The mantle of legitimacy and acceptance of Washington as president did, indeed, overlay the festivities. However, these celebrations were far from ad hoc affairs. Dinners, toasts, artillery, and mounted escorts met Washington along his way to New York. At his first stops in Alexandria, Baltimore, and Wilmington, “delegations of local dignitaries awaited him at each town, and relays of horsemen, relieving each other every dozen miles or so, formed a continuous guard of honor.”99 In Philadelphia, artist Charles Willson Peale organized the bedecking of wooden bridge supports at Gray’s Ferry, complete with ceremonial arches laden with laurel, cedar, and large emblazoned banners (“Behold the Rising Empire,” “A New Era,” “Don’t Tread on Me,” “May Commerce Flourish”). As Washington, atop a white horse provided by the city’s honor guard, passed under the first arch, Peale’s daughter, who was perched above the arch, used a mechanism her father had designed to lower a laurel wreath onto the American Apollo’s head. Washington swept the wreath from his head with a bow, and a good thing, since he needed a clear view and his legendary horsemanship to thread his way through twenty thousand cheering spectators.100 One newspaper reported his arrival with the note: “And behold a white horse; and he that sat on him had a bow, and a crown was given unto him, and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. Revelation, Chap. VI. Verse 2.”101 Philadelphia’s laurel wreath tribute became a prelude to the welcomes Washington received throughout the remainder of his journey. In Trenton, a greenery-covered passage adorned the bridge over Assunpink Creek; the top of the arch held a large rendition of a sunflower (symbolizing the sun and Washington) and the words: “The Defender of the Mothers will also Defend the Daughters.” As he started across the bridge on the latest noble horse, Washington paused as little girls, teenage young ladies, and women all dressed in white (“Virgins fair, and Matrons grave”) stepped forward to strew flower petals along his path and sing a song composed especially for the liberator of Trenton. Stops the next day in Princeton, New Brunswick, and Woodbridge included speeches, cannon fire, artillery companies lining the streets, music, church bells, and crowds of young and old. Finally, the following morning at Elizabeth Town, New Jersey, he traveled through a huge crowd to breakfast at a public house, met with Representative Elias Boudinot, and then joined his official congressional escort into New York City.102 The splendor of the earlier receptions paled with New York’s welcome. Washington left the crowded wharf at Elizabeth Town aboard an elegant barge amid celebratory artillery fire. Decorated with an awning and curtains colored the red of royalty and the American flag, the vessel was powered by

52

C H APTER 2

thirteen pilots dressed in white who were manning oars (although the boat had a mast and sail and the wind was favorable). With Washington in an allblue suit, the colors of the American flag (with the cardinal hint of a regal throne) set the prominent visual theme (Figure 2). As the barge moved through Newark Bay toward Staten Island, another vessel containing Henry Knox, John Jay, and others joined in, and smaller boats followed behind to form a flotilla. Next, a sloop sailed by, and then a second boat, both with choruses under full voice: “Hail thou auspicious day! . . . For WASHINGTON’S at hand, With Glory crown’d!”103 The noise from the water and the shouts from the “tens of thousands” on shore must have created quite a commotion. Curious porpoises surfaced and swam near Washington’s barge, “as if they had risen up to know what was the Cause of all this Joy.”104 As Washington’s barge passed several international ships all showing their colors, the British packet fired off a thirteen-gun salute that American cannons onshore answered. At this moment, the Spanish boat displayed flags “of between 20 & 30 Colours of different Nations” and set off another round of cannon fire. More gunfire and huzzahs followed as Washington’s barge landed at the foot of Wall Street where he disembarked onto redcarpeted stairs and made his way to a greeting party led by Governor George Clinton. The throng of spectators (“Heads as thick as Ears of Corn in the Field just before Harvest”) made the planned procession to Washington’s New York residence slow going, and the crowd “seemed incapable of being satisfied with gazing at this Man of the People.”105 Finally, after dinner, an exhausted Washington inspected the city illuminations that were on display despite “violent rain.”106 Although Washington’s entrance into New York seemed to have little in common with the satire and sympathy directed toward his arrival in the anonymous cartoon “The Entry,” the celebration his coming evoked bore striking similarity to the joy in Jerusalem on Jesus’s entry on Palm Sunday. Postmaster General Ebenezer Hazard declared that the day of Washington’s arrival “was indeed a Day of Joy.” He felt unable to truly capture the scene: “the Evidences of universal Attachment to [Washington] cannot be described: every Countenance discovered gladness of heart, and Curiosity, excited by Love, crowded every street through which ‘the Man of the People’ was to pass.”107 People from “all ranks and professions” praised the “FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY,” and all felt “the force of an expression, that was reiterated among the crowd—‘WELL, HE DESERVES IT ALL!’ ”108 Senator Maclay observed that “all the World seems transported with Joy.”109 Massachusetts representative George Thatcher described the festivities to his wife, Sarah, with mixed feelings. He reported that Washington’s arrival

Figure 2. George Washington, Arriving in New York City, April 30 [sic], 1789, by Arsene Hippolyte Rivey (French, 1838–1903), no date. Rivey rendered Washington’s barge with some accuracy and his romantic, sentimental, and naïve style captured the rapturous enthusiasm of the welcoming crowd. However, his date is incorrect— Washington arrived in New York City on April 23, 1789; he was inaugurated a week later on April 30. Rivey conflated the two events in the title of the piece. Collection of the New-York Historical Society; accession no. 1939.216.

54

C H APTER 2

“was attended by every mark of joy and congratulation in people of all ranks and ages that were possible for them to manifest.” Thatcher reiterated: “The streets, houses, doors, windows, stoups, and every eminence of sight was crouded with Spectators in one moving body . . . while every avenue from the buildings exhibited the fair faces and joious countenances of the daughters of america—which greatly heightened the delicacy of the Scene.” Though Thatcher appreciated the “delicacy” of the proceedings, he found the public response (“every mind was agitated with joy and ready to brake out in Halelujahs and Hosannas”) troubling: “But all these things are vanity!!! And yet they are pursued, talked about, and attended to as things that make a great part of the happiness of many people!”110 Thatcher admired businessman and prominent Quaker Thomas Pearsall, who resisted the popular enthusiasm with aplomb. Pearsall had gained his countrymen’s respect for providing a great ser vice during the Revolution when he remained in New York City and smuggled British merchandise to the Continental troops. Thatcher was impressed that the levelheaded Pearsall sat down to dinner with his family during all the festivities, though he lived along the route and was exhorted to forget his meal and join in. By Thatcher’s account, Pearsall “was told that the President was passing with his retinue, and asked if he would not look at them—he replied—that it was no matter whether he saw the President . . . and if he never saw him he did not know that it was any matter—he and his family with perfect indifference to the general commotion at the door, set down and in tranquility eat their dinner.” Thatcher continued: “Drums beting, fifs playing, Bands of Music sounding—but all could not take hold of the mind of our Quaker!”111 In addition to its echoes of the joy in Jerusalem, the excitement that greeted Washington throughout his trip from Mount Vernon bore resemblance to royal entry and coronation processions, as well as regal progresses. In England, “the mayor and citizens . . . riding to meet the king outside of the city and escorting him joyfully to the palace” had been a custom during a royal entry since before 1200. In another custom, “the streets were cleaned, the city ornamented with flags, banners, chaplets, hangings, candles and lamps.”112 In addition, children, the prettiest girls, and women were often prominently placed participants, and the people of the countryside celebrated with speeches, parades, and food. Similar to the illumination of New York on the rainy evening of Washington’s arrival and the festivities planned for his inauguration day, royal entry and coronation activities included “bonfires, bell ringing, and general merrymaking.”113 With Washington’s return to public ser vice, the references to father and savior of his country gained renewed energy despite, and possibly because

T HE T HIRD BODY O F WA S HI N GTO N

55

of, lingering worries about the untested Constitution. The Gazette of the United States declared that Washington “stood, Upon the boundary line . . . Of human from divine” and found his achievements “upon a scale of eminence, that Heaven never before assigned to a mortal.”114 Letters of congratulation poured in to Washington from an array of clergymen. Even Virginia Baptists, who feared that the Constitution “insufficiently secured” the “liberty of conscience, dearer to us than property or life,” nevertheless joined in the “universal chorus” of praise and acceptance of his election.115 Jared Mansfield, who had sided with Britain during the war, perceived the conflicted views voiced by the Baptists but greeted them with a Tory’s satisfaction. Mansfield found echoes of monarchy in Washington’s presidency when he noted to friend and fellow Loyalist, the Anglican reverend Samuel Peters: “Our President or king is held here little short of a God and mortality seems hardly attached to him.” He reported (perhaps somewhat hopefully) that uneasiness about the new federal government had brought a mellowing toward George III: “The character of the King of England, so much abused during the war is spoken of with reverence or regret for former illiberal abuse, in short a conviction of error in promoting the late Confusions, displays itself in the most striking efforts for Amendment and perhaps; extreme enthusiasm for government.”116 At times, Americans seemed almost blithely accepting of the uneasy relationship of Washington as providential son with his new position as president. In the autumn of 1788, Revolutionary War general Frederick Steuben reported with alacrity on those expected to run the new government: “Every body heer is Occupied to dispose of the Offices . . . For the great Chair are the Candidates, G.W. or God Almighty, for the Second, Great Adams . . . Chief Justice, Mr. Jay: Ministre of finances, Hammilton; of Warr, the big book binder [Knox] . . . of foreign Affairs, perhaps Madisson.”117 The following April, Representative Boudinot congratulated Washington with: “Providence and your Country call, and there is no place for a refusal—The Sacrifice is required and the Offering must be made.”118 Everywhere, people seemed to share the sentiments of New Hampshire senator Paine Wingate when he told his wife, Hannah: “You can not esteem him too much if your admiration of him is short of Idolatry.”119 In his later years, John Randolph of Roanoke recalled the vibrancy of national events in the spring of 1789, when he was a lad of fifteen at Columbia College: “I had seen the old Congress expire and the new government rise like a Phoenix from its ashes. I saw the coronation (such in fact it was) of Gen. Washington in March, 1789, and heard [Fisher] Ames and [ James] Madison, when they first took their seats in the House of Representatives.”120

56

C H APTER 2

Popular adoration of Washington as president thus brought the nature and danger of his sacred third body of sovereignty into stark relief. The title controversy began before Washington’s arrival in New York City, and his inauguration occurred during the height of the legislative uproar over the matter. Despite his long-held reservations about Washington’s celebrity, John Adams spearheaded the push for an exalted honorific for the country’s new executive. During the Revolutionary War, Adams expressed the hope that the American people would allow Washington “to be wise, virtuous, and good, without thinking him a Deity or a saviour.” Adams had worried that the “Idolatry, and Adulation” of Washington would become “unbounded, so excessive as to endanger our Liberties.”121 By 1789, Adams’s fears that the office of the executive would lack energy and prestige overpowered his coincident worries about Washington’s acclaim, and drove him to push for a regal title. With or without a monarch’s title, Washington’s near deification by the American public threatened to create an American presidency that mixed the sacred (and nondemocratic) with the secular. The dispute over a title challenged both Congress and the country to confront the phenomenon of the third body of Washington as they debated the essential nature of the American presidency.

Ch a p ter 3

Protecting the Presidency A Republican Dilemma

Ratification era debates over the Constitution’s brief outline of the presidency reveal an emerging protectiveness toward the Republic’s new leader. Throughout American society, this attitude of care mixed with anxiety as people sought to balance conflicting fears that corruption might overtake the president, either in the guise of dangerously strong monarchical energy or as a debilitating weakness in the office. Debates about America’s new executive remained largely unresolved as members of the First Federal Congress assembled in the spring of 1789. Consequently, the issues raised about the presidency during ratification provide an important window on the confusion wrought by two competing concepts of executive leadership for America’s federal Republic and illustrate how the title question became a pressing issue for Congress and the country. These fiercely different attitudes about the vigor of the presidency created a republican dilemma for Congress and the American people as they weighed the best way to ensure presidential authority without endangering egalitarian ideals. Vice President John Adams and Virginia senator Richard Henry Lee anticipated that cabals of powerful elites in the Senate or other influential, potentially corrupt entities would compromise the independence and authority of the president and therefore deemed an exalted title to enhance the stature of an inherently weak executive to be imperative. However, the mere mention of a title alarmed the acutely antimonarchical 57

58

C H APTER 3

sensibilities of Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania, Representative James Madison of Virginia, and the entire House of Representatives. The dispute and its republican dilemma highlighted the long-standing and conflicting hierarchical and democratic-republican traditions that struggled for preeminence in postrevolutionary America and exposed rifts over the social hierarchy that titles reflected and encouraged. Just as important, the debate over how to address the country’s executive revealed a pronounced concern over the character of the president and the United States within a monarchal world. During ratification, Antifederalist critics repeatedly pointed to the Constitution’s elected singular executive and warned of a monarchy. A Pennsylvania Antifederalist identified as “An Old Whig” summarized their concerns: “To be the fountain of all honors in the United States, commander in chief of the army, navy and militia, with the power of making treaties and of granting pardons, and to be vested with an authority to put a negative upon all laws . . . is in reality to be a KING as much a King as the King of Great Britain, and a King too of the worst kind—an elective King.”1 Repulsed at the thought of the “venality and corruption” that would attach to an elective monarchy, elderly Connecticut physician Benjamin Gale claimed a preference for “a hereditary King or President [rather] than an Elective King, as it will eternally embroil the state by schemers for the outs and ins, and lay the foundation of clamors, broils, and contentions that will end in blood.”2 America’s certain advance away from the egalitarian ideals of the Revolution seemed clear to many who read the proposed Constitution. One South Carolinian wanted his family seal traced back to its roots in England: “As our steps toward monarchy are very obvious, I would wish my Children to have all the Rights to rank, & distinction, which is to be claimed from Ancestry . . . We are getting back fast to the system” we overthrew in 1776.3 Pennsylvanian Samuel Bryan, writing as “Centinel,” predicted that his fellows “may bid adieu to all the blessings of liberty, to all the fruits of the later glorious assertion of the rights of human nature, made at the expence of so much blood and treasure.”4 Federalist essayist Tench Coxe of Philadelphia anticipated the swift and widespread antimonarchical critique of Antifederalists and countered with a defense of the executive almost before the ink was dry on the final version of the document. As “An American Citizen,” Coxe contrasted the British king with the proposed American president. The British king enacted legislation, bestowed titles of nobility, and was the “Supreme Head of an established church, with an immense patronage annexed . . . [the] king is for

PROT ECT IN G T HE P R ES I D E N C Y

59

life . . . the king is hereditary and may be an idiot, a knave, and a tyrant by nature.” He stressed the evils of British hereditary rule: “An helpless infant or an unexperienced youth, may wear the crown.” America’s chosen leader, conversely, would be a man of at least thirty-five years with a known character. The president “will always be one of the people at the end of four years . . . can create no nobility or titles of honor . . . [and] will have no power over the treasures of the state.” Coxe concluded, “From such a servant with powers so limited and transitory, there can be no danger.”5 In March 1788, Alexander Hamilton, writing as “Publius” (in part of the famous collaboration with James Madison and John Jay that became The Federalist Papers), acknowledged the incessant charges of monarchy when he used the first three of his essays defending the presidency to address them. Hamilton denied “the gross pretence of a similitude between a King of Great-Britain and a magistrate of the character marked out for the President of the United States.”6 He championed an energetic, “vigorous” president and dismissed concerns that “the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate.” Hamilton referenced both the king of England and the governor of New York to illustrate how the president’s powers were less than and different from those of a king, and similar (and occasionally superior) to those of the most powerful governor in the United States.7 When South Carolina Federalist “Caroliniensis” compared the Constitution to the British one, he labored longest in his defense of the executive against any resemblance to a king. The monarch “is the supreme head of the church. . . . The crown is his by hereditary right.” Although “Caroliniensis” believed that an “efficient government” required a single executive authority, he emphasized the elective nature of the Constitution. The American president appeared “less dangerous” than a king because he had no supreme legislative power and remained “responsible to his constituents” since he was subject to reelection and could be impeached. “Caroliniensis” then ended his promotion of the Constitution by comparing it to the benefits that monarchy could offer, which could have fanned as many flames as it doused: “Upon the whole, it appears to me that there is happily blended in this proposed plan, the energy and dispatch of a monarchical—the wisdom of an aristocratical, and the virtue and integrity of a democratical government, without the dangers and inconveniences of either.”8 Many critics of the Constitution also dreaded a weak executive. They expected that the document’s failure to delineate the executive branch in more detail presaged a dysfunctional national government with a constrained head of state who would fall prey to, or collude with, an aristocratic

60

C H APTER 3

Senate, powerful foreign interests, or other irresistible forces. At first glance, Antifederalist fears of an impotent executive may seem counterintuitive given their apprehensions about a strong presidency, not to mention contradictory to their antimonarchy stance. However, many critics of the Constitution believed that a weak executive could just as easily evolve into a monarchy as a strong one since either “ambition or desperation would drive individual presidents to attempt to set themselves up literally as kings.”9 Antifederalist distrust of the presidency, especially a corrupt one, linked to an overall concern that the proposed national government was just not representative enough.10 Critics of the Constitution doubted that the people would have a voice because the Senate would become an “aristocracy of ambition,” the House was not large enough to represent the common interest, and the president alone—without a privy council, advisers, or other trappings of power—would look to his own survival first rather than to the will of the people. “An Officer of the Late Continental Army” warned, “Should the Senate, by the intrigues of foreign powers, become devoted to foreign influence . . . the people will be obliged . . . to seek their refuge in the arms of the monarch or PRESIDENT GENERAL.”11 Virginian Arthur Lee, writing as “Cincinnatus,” predicted that the Senate would foster “a baneful aristocracy” too far “removed from the people.” His brother, Richard Henry Lee, considered the House of Representatives to be much too small and “a mere shred or rag of representation.”12 Antifederalists believed that “bottoming” the Constitution on a bill of rights for the protection of “personal liberties” would alleviate but not solve the document’s elite design.13 Although the “aristocracy” of the Senate became something of a rallying cry for critics of the Constitution and the presidency, the term was loaded with multiple meanings in America. Fears of rule by new, constitutionally empowered cliques ran through resistance to all branches of the proposed national government. Antifederalist “Federal Farmer” distinguished the different types of aristocracy: “There are three kinds of aristocracy spoken of in this country—the first is a constitutional one, which does not exist in the United States.”14 He referred to hereditary aristocracy, which the American Revolution had eliminated when ties with Britain were broken. The proposed Constitution underscored this in Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”15 “Federal Farmer” identified a second strain of aristocracy as a faction of dangerous, self-serving elites. The assumption that power could corrupt the

PROT ECT IN G T HE P R ES I D E N C Y

61

most well-meaning of citizens drove the concern that federal leaders would be too far removed from the people to be contained and oligarchies or factions of the powerful few would have the run of the government. The “aristocracy of the Senate” critique reflected this view. These elites could all too easily become “an aristocratic faction; a junto of unprincipled men, often distinguished for their wealth or abilities, who combine together and make their object their private interests and aggrandizement.”16 Antifederalists from all walks of life—from the most powerful state politicians and lawyers to millers, merchants, and farmers—worried about aristocratic conspiracies and cabals flourishing under the proposed Constitution.17 “Federal Farmer” found that America also contained a natural aristocracy comprised of state governors, legislators, judges, military officers, large landholders, and “eminent” professionals. The natural aristocracy designated “a respectable order of men, the line between whom and the natural democracy is in some degree arbitrary.” For “Federal Farmer,” the natural democracy comprised “the yeomanry, the subordinate officers, civil and military, the fishermen, mechanics and traders, many of the merchants and professional men.” However, he admitted that differentiating the natural aristocracy from the natural democracy was often subjective. He spoke of these groups as two “classes” of men, “the aristocratical, and democratical,” who “with views equally honest, have sentiments widely different, especially respecting public and private expenses.”18 While Federalists defended the natural aristocracy as an “aristocracy of merit, what we would now call meritocracy,” the more populist Antifederalists maintained that Federalists were “not discussing virtue but merely defending the interests of an identifiable social class” of wellborn individuals who could collude with, or become part of, the aristocracy of the Senate.19 The Constitution appeared to work against the inclusive government that Antifederalists sought—one that made room for the best of the natural democracy, the deserving artisans and yeomen. Antifederalists like “Federal Farmer,” “Centinel,” and “An Officer of the Late Continental Army” spoke for yeomen, small merchants, and others of the natural democracy. They believed that large and socially broad representation was the best, perhaps only, way to preserve American democracy. Their criticisms of the proposed federal government reflected a profound distrust of its small size and probable lack of social breadth. Elite Antifederalists—revolutionary leaders such as George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Richard Henry Lee, as well as leading politicians, lawyers, and merchants—occupied a precarious position regarding aristocracy. These Antifederalists often deflected attention from their elite status by

62

C H APTER 3

championing a natural aristocracy that was both virtuous and meritorious. Some of these critics of the Constitution remembered state abuses of power and arbitrary laws issuing from popularly elected legislatures with a “resultant diminution of executive authority.”20 Given these examples of legislative excess (and an uneasiness over the marginalization of their influence in the national arena), Antifederalist elites aimed their critiques at the threat of aristocratic juntos and oligarchic rule of the corrupt few. As a result, maintaining virtue and “an aristocracy of virtue or merit—a natural aristocracy” within the national government became an overriding concern for them.21 Although it seemed inconceivable that the Senate would overshadow President Washington, a future of aristocratic Senates controlling complicit or anemic presidents of lesser stature appeared both plausible and imminent. In Hartford, Hugh Ledlie complained of Federalist favoritism in the local papers to fellow Stamp Act rabble-rouser John Lamb, whom he had not seen in years. He commended Lamb on an anecdote he had heard about him: “The other day . . . a gentleman, one Mr. [Alexander?] Hamilton, meeting you in the street, asked you how you could be so much against the new Constitution, for it was pretty certain your old good friend General Washington would in all probability be the first President under it. To which you replied, that in that case all might be well, but perhaps after him General Slushington might be the next or second President.” For Ledlie and others, the muddy mire alluded to by Lamb’s “General Slushington” conjured the anxiety surrounding the viability of the federal executive.22 The devastating consequences of “aristocracy” on the independence of the presidency came up repeatedly.23 George Mason’s grave concern about the aristocracy of the Senate was one of the reasons he refused to sign the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention (the other delegates who did not sign were Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry). In his dissenting opinion, which he circulated privately and in pamphlet form, Mason declared: “The President of the United States has no Constitutional Council, a thing unknown in any safe and regular government. He will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites; or he will become a tool to the Senate.” Mason worried about additional opportunity for collusion since through the shared power of declaring “treaties supreme laws of the land, the Executive and the Senate have, in many cases an exclusive power of legislation.” He foresaw shady backroom deals since the president “has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime.”24

PROT ECT IN G T HE P R ES I D E N C Y

63

Mason’s predictions that the president would become a tool of the Senate and a corrupt force gained considerable momentum during the ratification process. In the Pennsylvania ratification convention, delegate John Smilie echoed Mason: “The President has no powers—he is only a tool to the Senate.”25 The dissenting delegates at the Pennsylvania convention grimly believed that the presidency, as proposed, would be corrupt from the beginning, and said as much in their opposition opinion: “The president general is dangerously connected with the senate; his coincidence with the views of the ruling junto in that body is made essential to his weight and importance in the government, which will destroy all independency and purity in the executive.”26 “Centinel” (Samuel Bryan) similarly warned that the president would become the Senate’s “minion,” and that aristocratic rule would harm the “liberties of the people” through coercion. “The President, who would be a mere pageant of state, unless he coincides with the views of the Senate, would either become the head of the aristocratic junto in that body, or its minion . . . And from his power of granting pardons, he might screen from punishment the most treasonable attempts of the liberties of the people, when instigated by the Senate.” He reiterated that state elites comprised powerful factions that threatened the cause of freedom: “In many of the states, particularly in this and the northern states, there are aristocratic junto’s of the well-born few, who had been zealously endeavoring since the establishment of their constitution, to humble that offensive upstart, equal liberty.”27 Tench Coxe realized that charges of state aristocratic corruption of the president would follow fast on the heels of charges of monarchy and attempted to dispel them (again as “An American Citizen”) just two days after his first essay appeared. Coxe foresaw no conspiracies because “the Senate must always receive the exceptions of the President against any of their legislative acts, which, without serious deliberation and sufficient reasons, they will seldom disregard.” Limits to the power of senators also came from the inability to “raise a national revenue” and the choice of the people, who “through the Electors, prescribe them such a President as shall be best qualified to control them.” Coxe denied that the Senate was a hereditary aristocracy: “As our President bears no resemblance to a king, so we shall see the Senate have no similitude to nobles . . . they will have none of the peculiar follies and vices of those men who possess power merely because their fathers held it before them.”28 The clamor over the danger of aristocratic rule continued to reverberate, and by the spring of 1788, Hamilton’s “Publius” seemed to throw up his hands in frustration. As he strove to draw differences between the presidency

64

C H APTER 3

and a monarchy, he expounded: “What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us, that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism.”29 In a calmer tone, he later acknowledged concerns that the legislature would “intrude upon the rights, and . . . absorb the powers, of the other departments.” In answer, he referenced the president’s veto power; though sparingly used, it acted as “a shield to the executive . . . a salutary check upon the legislative body.”30 Both Hamilton and Jay (as “Publius”) relied on civic virtue to combat the argument that either a weak or strong executive could collude with the Senate. In the example of presidential appointments, Hamilton asserted that “the instances in which the president could be personally interested in the result, would be too few to admit of his being materially affected by the compliances of the senate.”31 On the possibility of malfeasance in treaty making, Jay claimed: “As to corruption, the case is not supposable, he must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that the president and two thirds of the senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained.”32 With New Hampshire’s ratification in June 1788, the number of assenting states reached the requisite nine, the Constitution became binding (especially after Virginia and New York ratified a few weeks later), and the intense ratification debates came to a close. During the postratification period, activity on all sides of the constitutional debate proceeded “without any break in the continuity of political action.”33 Antifederalist doubts lingered and, in particular, demands persisted for amendments to the Constitution, both in the form of various “rights-based amendments” to guarantee basic individual freedoms and the even more numerous “alterations” aimed at “changes in the balance of power between the state and federal governments and in the structure of the federal government.”34 Some former critics of the Constitution became late-blooming Federalists, while others remained skeptical and formed the core of a loyal opposition committed to national governance without the loss of individual liberties or the viability of the states.35 Many former Antifederalists chose to seek national office to assure the adoption of amendments and to help shape the emerging national government. The most prominent of these to serve was Richard Henry Lee, one of the first two senators from Virginia.

PROT ECT IN G T HE P R ES I D E N C Y

65

Although former Federalists comprised the bulk of the first Congress, many former Antifederalists chose to serve. Of the twenty-six available seats in the Senate in 1789, former Federalists held all but three—besides Richard Henry Lee, the other former Antifederalists were William Grayson of Virginia and Joseph Stanton of Rhode Island (who did not arrive until 1790, after his state ratified the Constitution). Of the sixty-five seats in the House, former constitutional critics from Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, and North and South Carolina comprised “a distinct Anti-Federalist minority” of thirteen. Of these, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts possessed the greatest national recognition, and Virginia sent the most former Antifederalists.36 The strong-willed and resolute Richard Henry Lee went to New York City largely to press for the passage of amendments. In the autumn of 1788, he assured influential friends and politicians: “It is . . . a conviction of mind, resulting from the most mature reflection, that the civil Liberty of our Country will be endangered if amendments cannot be procured to the lately received Constitution.”37 He believed that passage of amendments should happen right away: “The best opportunity will be afforded of doing the most essential ser vices to the community, and especially at its first institution when amendments so necessary for the security of civil liberty, will probably be the most attainable.” Lee professed that only the dangers to liberty of “the unamended state of the new constitution, could have induced me to consent again to become a public man.”38 Lee had a checkered relationship with the Constitution from its inception. His experiences as a revolutionary leader, a past president of the Confederation Congress (November 1784 to November 1785), and a Virginia delegate to that body in 1787, made him a natural choice to attend the Philadelphia Convention. However, he refused to attend and remained in New York with Congress. After the convention submitted the proposed Constitution to Congress for transmittal to the states, Lee argued that the convention had exceeded its authority, wanted Congress to state as much in an attachment, and suggested that a list of amendments be sent to the states. When Congress ignored him, he criticized the Constitution through damaging letters and published versions of possible amendments. As George Washington informed James Madison, a letter that Lee had written to Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia, “circulated with great industry . . . and is said to have had a bad influence” on the public attitude and the Constitution’s chances for ratification.39 Lee’s actions highlighted his concerns about the aristocratic nature of the proposed government. He was convinced that in the Constitution’s

66

C H APTER 3

“present State, unamended, the adoption of it will put Civil Liberty and the happiness of the people at the mercy of Rulers who may possess the great unguarded powers given.” To George Mason, Lee faulted the proposed document for “the greatness of the powers given, and the multitude of places to be created produce a coalition of monarchy men, military men, aristocrats and drones, whose noise, impudence and zeal exceeds all belief.” Lee feared the rise of oligarchy and believed the Constitution to be susceptible to abuse. He viewed the unamended Constitution as a catalyst for cabals of aristocratic rule, an encouragement of the “corrupting nature of power, and its insatiable appetite for increase.” He decried to Samuel Adams: “Some capital defects are not within the compass of legislative redress—The Oligarchic tendency from the combination of President, V. President, and Senate, is a ruin not within legislative remedy.”40 In the letter that Washington identified as a bad influence on ratification, Lee predicted that “either a monarchy or aristocracy will be generated . . . this new constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchic; and it is a point agreed that a government of the few, is, of all governments, the worst.” Like Mason, he worried about the independence of the executive, and his proposed amendments included the creation of “a council of state or privy council” to strengthen the presidency. Such a council would “prevent the dangerous blending of the legislative and executive powers, and to secure responsibility, the privy, and not the senate shall be joined with the president in the appointment of all officers, civil and military, under the new constitution.” Lee thought a president with a council was sufficient enough that he advocated eliminating the vice president, which he believed added “unnecessarily to the Aristocratic influence” of the proposed government.41 Richard Henry Lee’s suspicion of the vice presidency held a touch of irony when his longtime friend and confidant, John Adams, became the first man to hold the office. Lee and Adams first met in 1774 at the Philadelphia home of Lee’s sister, Alice Shippen, prior to the gathering that would become the First Continental Congress. The two men, so different physically—Lee, a tall, slender, effusive Virginian; Adams, a shorter, rounder, deacon’s son from Massachusetts—recognized themselves as kindred spirits in the cause of opposition to Great Britain. Considered firebrands at the first meeting of Congress, they reflected the majority by the time the Second Continental Congress met the following year. Their friendship and political partnership became tied irrevocably with the history of the American Revolution on June 7, 1776. That day, Lee moved for a resolution that

PROT ECT IN G T HE P R ES I D E N C Y

67

“these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent States,” and Adams immediately seconded the motion. Within a month, Congress declared independence.42 John Adams came to the vice presidency after spending nearly ten years as a diplomat in Europe. The last three of those years, he had been in London serving as the first United States minister to Great Britain. Because his work kept him abroad, the immediacy of Adams’s voice in letters or newspaper articles was largely absent from the ratification discourse of 1787 and 1788. Nonetheless, his ideas figured in the debates—mainly as the object of praise from some Federalists and, more often, criticism from other Federalists and many Antifederalists for various parts of his treatise, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. Intended as a laudatory examination of state constitutions, Defence was published about the same time that the proposed Constitution went to the states for ratification and became associated with the push for a new federal constitution.43 Adams’s Defence presented a lengthy and rambling study that promoted— much like the proposed Constitution (to the pleasure of Federalists)—a federal government with a bicameral legislature and an independent executive. The difference between the Constitution and the ideal government Adams outlined centered on how the legislative houses and the executive functioned. Defence admired the British Constitution and a mixed government, which balanced the competing interests of monarchy (executive), aristocracy (Senate), and democracy (House). Federalists disagreed with Adams’s admiration of the British system and argued that the Constitution envisioned a balanced division of powers rather than a mixed government. Under its plan, they maintained, the different branches of government performed different tasks, but with each branch representing the interests of all of the people.44 Future federal representative John Page of Virginia was so incensed by what he perceived as monarchism in Adams’s Defence that he composed a poem (as “A Republican”) criticizing him: “For shame! Forget the haughty Monarch’s frown; And dream no more of virtues in a Crown.”45 Adams could be a realistic and shrewd though severe judge of human nature and man’s pursuit of fame, including his own, which made the reception of his Defence somewhat storied on both sides of the ratification effort.46 In Defence, he brought down the wrath of Federalists, who spent most of their time praising the Constitution’s representative democracy and the republic it described, when he posited that even representative government was a government of the interested few. Adams additionally enraged popular Antifederalists, like “Centinel,” by saying that a wise group of the

68

C H APTER 3

natural aristocracy should be corralled in a Senate and provide steadying reins on the impetuous democracy of the House. In addition, he promoted a strong, almost monarchical executive to balance the legislature and fend off corruption, which endeared him to no one since Federalists played down the monarchy issue and Antifederalists distrusted both weak and strong president-kings.47 Although Roger Sherman and others had begun considering a “style of address more novel and dignified than Excellency” for the president (as John Armstrong noted in his letter to Horatio Gates), it was John Adams who most strongly promoted the adoption of a title grand enough to ensure the dignity and authority of the president.48 In his support for a regal title, historians have criticized the Adams of 1789 as being personally flawed and curiously misguided, misunderstanding “the meaning of the Constitution” and adhering to a “traditional conception of eighteenth-century politics at the very moment of its disintegration.” They find Adams “woefully out of step with the country,” as he overlooked the egalitarian republicanism and representative democracy gripping America in the postwar years: “seemingly immune to the new thought around him. . . . The widening separation from his countrymen . . . only compelled him to proclaim his diverging beliefs more shrilly than ever.”49 Yet, “Centinel” and many other Americans of the early Republic believed that representational reality fell short of their ideals of popular sovereignty. If the executive and legislative branches were already representative entities, what explains the repeated Antifederalist claims that the Constitution would encourage oligarchy and aristocratic rule? “Centinel” certainly did not see his state legislature as a representative body when he reminded his readers that “in many of the states . . . there are aristocratic junto’s” empowered by state constitutions and dedicated to the subversion of liberty and equality.50 Although populist Antifederalists attacked Adams for his admiration of natural aristocracy, his dread of aristocratic cabals of Senate and other elites mirrored the anxieties of the broad spectrum of Antifederalists. Indeed, Adams must have felt increasingly disconnected, especially during and after ratification—not from all of his countrymen, but rather from his Federalist friends, as he, like many critics of the Constitution, worried about abuses of power. Adams had dedicated himself “to the formation of a national Government, which may bind Us together on one hand, and Secure our Liberties equally from a single Tyrant, a Junto of Barons, and a Mob of Madmen.” He promoted executive branch titles as a way to strengthen the untried president’s power against threats of rule by a tyrant or junto, as much as from rule by the mob.51

PROT ECT IN G T HE P R ES I D E N C Y

69

Instead of being sadly out of touch with the whole of the American people, Adams became the only prominent Federalist to harbor Antifederalist leanings relating to oligarchy and to voice agreement about the threat of aristocratic rule. Critics of the Constitution worried that a corrupt few would overpower or taint the president and restrict the rights of the states (or of some states more than others) and the people. Adams had misgivings about the ability of the federal executive to exert appropriate authority over state elites, state governments, and the Senate, the legislative branch that represented the states. He thought the success of the new government depended on “the Pivot on which the great Question will turn, between the Authority of the national and that of the State Governments.”52 Like Antifederalists convinced that a weak president would become a tool of the Senate, Adams believed only a vigorous head of state could counteract a powerful Senate of elite politicians who might not have the good of the nation at heart. He viewed a strong executive as a champion against corruption: “Nature and Art both concur, in having Recourse to one great officer, as a Protector against a dangerous Aristocracy.” Adams likened the Senate to an aristocracy and the president to a king when he wrote: “It is a common opinion that all those who dread or detest an Aristocracy must Still more dread and detest a Monarchy, but no opinion is more erroneous. The contrary is so true, that in every Instance Monarchy has been resorted to, as the only assylum against the eternal discords, the deadly Feuds, the endless ambition Avarice Lust Cruelty, Jealousy, Envy and Revenge, of uncontrouled Aristocratics.”53 Adams viewed power struggles between the legislative and executive branches like many critics of the Constitution who anticipated capitulation of both the president and the House of Representatives to a power bloc in the Senate. He explained to Roger Sherman: Power naturally grows . . . The Legislative Power in our Constitution, is greater than the Executive, it will therefore encroach—because both Aristocratical and democratical Passions are insatiable. The Legislative Power will increase, the Executive will diminish. In the Legislature, the Monarchical Power is not equal, either to the Aristocratical, or democratical—it will therefore decrease, while the others will increase. Indeed I think the Aristocratical Power is greater than either the Monarchical or Democratical. That will therefore Swallow up the other two.54 Admittedly, Adams recommended more presidential “Independence . . . Dignity and Splendor” than Antifederalists favored, but his qualms about a

70

C H APTER 3

Senate oligarchy elicited an assenting nod from his old friend Richard Henry Lee.55 Lee and Adams shared the bond of their partnership on the 1776 independence resolution, plus Adams had supported Lee when he had fallen victim to the sting of Virginia’s powerful elites. In 1778, Lee’s brothers, Arthur and William, became embroiled in an ugly scandal in France that placed them in opposition to Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane. Franklin, Deane, and Arthur Lee served as commissioners on the American delegation to France, assigned to obtain money and materials for the Revolution. William Lee functioned as Congress’s commercial agent in the port of Nantes, from which most of the aid shipped.56 In the Lee-Deane affair, as it is often called, the two Lees in France accused Deane of spying and war profiteering and implicated Franklin of turning a blind eye. Deane answered by charging the Lees with incompetence, theft, and alienating the French. Franklin, who believed that his diplomatic mission required a delicate touch and a tolerance of duplicity, found Arthur’s hot temper and self-righteous attitude counterproductive in the extreme. During the height of the scandal, Congress sent John Adams to France as Deane’s replacement. Although Adams remained loyal to Richard Henry Lee and thought Arthur Lee to be an honest man, he found that Arthur “had given Offence, by an unhappy disposition, and by indiscreet Speeches before Servants and others, concerning the French Nation and Government, despising and cursing them.” Adams tried, but he had no luck mediating the situation between Franklin, Lee, and the French.57 The scandal reached American shores in earnest after Congress recalled Deane and the Lees and removed them from their posts. Not surprising, the Lee name suffered and the family’s political influence waned. In the autumn of 1779, Richard Henry Lee tired of the political intrigues in Virginia and told Adams that he contemplated moving to the “wise and free republic in Massachusetts Bay, where yet I hope to finish the remainder of my days.” Although he remained at home in Chantilly, Virginia, Lee felt ill-used by a powerful cabal within the state: “The hasty, unpersevering, aristocratic genius of the south suits not my disposition and is inconsistent with my ideas of what must constitute social happiness and security.” Lee’s Antifederalist writings confirmed that his aversion to aristocracy remained a part of his political perspective throughout his life.58 Shared disgust of aristocracy proved pivotal to the position that Adams and Lee took on a presidential title. Fears of a weak executive becoming the tool of an influential few drove their push for an exalted title. When Adams broached the question of how to address the president and Lee moved that

PROT ECT IN G T HE P R ES I D E N C Y

71

a joint congressional committee produce a title recommendation, strengthening the executive from the certain overwhelming force of the Senate informed their actions. Opponents castigated supporters of a lofty title as monarchists, but the Antifederalist argument that the Constitution did not protect the executive from oligarchy underlaid the stance of Adams and Lee and caused others to favor or consider grandiose titles. Adams’s viewpoint could be, and often was, explained away by his repeated references to America as a monarchical Republic, but contemporaries expressed shock and confusion over Lee’s advocacy of titles, given his staunch constitutional critiques during ratification. A stunned James Madison divulged to Edmund Randolph: “The friends of titles . . . are headed by the v-ce-p-s-d-t. who is seconded with all the force and urgency of natural temper by R. H. L.!!!”59 To Thomas Jefferson, he reported that “J. Adams espoused the cause of titles with great earnestness. His friend R. H. Lee altho elected as a republican enemy to an aristocratic constitution was a most zealous second.”60 Antifederalist rhetoric about aristocratic cabals and weak executives seemed forgotten as the antimonarchical Madison focused on the difference between a republic and hereditary aristocracy. To Madison, an “aristocratic constitution” meant a monarchal one that allowed hereditary aristocracy; “republican” signified a Constitution that prohibited it. As Madison’s “Publius” said,” the “absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the Federal and the State Governments” provided “proof . . . of the republican complextion” of the Constitution.61 Yet, the repeated arguments against the possibility of cabals made by “Publius” and other Federalist essayists lent credence to the position of critics of the Constitution who anticipated juntos of the powerful few. Although Madison once mused, “I see, and politically feel that [the executive] will be the weak branch of the government,” he believed that a weak president never would become a dupe of the Senate or the House because neither house of Congress ever could become an oligarchy.62 As “Publius,” Madison defended the “national character” of the Senate, but acknowledged that “the jealous adversary of the Constitution will probably content himself with repeating that a senate appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous pre-eminence in the government and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.” His answer (like Hamilton and Jay) refuted the possibility of wrongdoing: “The Senate . . . must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures, must then corrupt the House of Representatives, and must

72

C H APTER 3

finally corrupt the people at large.” In addition, a state’s control over the “periodical change in members,” the House’s “co-equal” power, and the people’s ability to elect new representatives (which would “restore all things to their pristine order”) stood in the way of abuse. He asked: “Is there any man who can seriously persuade himself that the proposed Senate can . . . arrive at the object of a lawless ambition through all these obstructions?” He maintained that “the federal senate will never be able to transform itself, by gradual usurpations, into an independent and aristocratic body.”63 Madison envisioned representation in the House as a broadly construed natural aristocracy and took par ticular affront at accusations of what he termed “pretended oligarchy.” He defended the House against the “charge . . . that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at the ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few.” Madison called this, of all objections to the House, “perhaps the most extraordinary.” He saw only republican mainstays: “What circumstance there is in the Constitution of the House of Representatives, that violates the principles of republican government; or favors the elevation of the few on the ruins of the many? Let me ask whether every circumstance is not, on the contrary . . . scrupulously impartial to the rights and pretensions of every class and description of citizens?”64 A representative could be any “citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country.” The Constitution did not play favorites: “Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune.”65 Privately, Madison admitted to Edmund Pendleton that the legislative branch, especially the Senate, held the potential for a dominance that verged on an unhealthy disequilibrium. He even conceded a threat to the presidency from the upper house: “If the possibility of encroachments on the part of the Ex. or the Senate were to be compared, I should pronounce the danger to lie rather in the latter than the former. The mixture of Legislative Executive and Judiciary authorities lodged in that body, justifies such an inference.” He confided with remarkable candor, “in truth the Legislative power is of such a nature that it scarcely [crossed out] can be restrained either by the Constitution or by itself. And if the federal Government should lose its proper equilibrium within itself, I am persuaded that the effect will proceed from the Encroachments of the Legislative department.”66 At those moments of doubt and reflection about the Constitution’s balance of powers, Madison’s faith in the construction of the House of Representatives proved to be the unshakable cornerstone of his political

PROT ECT IN G T HE P R ES I D E N C Y

73

understanding. Although the executive branch might prove weak, the presidency remained protected from oligarchic collusion with the Senate by the powers and the larger number of the people’s representatives in the House: “At the same [time] I am fully in the opinion, that the numerous and imediate representatives of the people, composing the other House, will decidedly predominate in the Government.”67 Madison believed that America’s new government embodied the antithesis of monarchy and hereditary aristocracy since all branches of government derived from the will of the people. The United States Constitution depicted a true Republic, as opposed to “the government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, [yet] has with . . . impropriety been frequently placed on the list of republics.”68 A revolutionary aversion to monarchy remained embedded in the American culture and was far from the exclusive territory of Antifederalists—like Madison, many Federalists who defended the Constitution’s executive and pushed for ratification deeply opposed monarchy. During the title controversy, Federalist senator William Maclay emerged as the champion of the antimonarchical, egalitarian side of the debate in the Senate. Maclay was a well-known state legislator, surveyor, and landowner from the less populous part of Pennsylvania, an active representative of agrarian interest. He had an independent streak, and his support for the Constitution during ratification ran counter to the views of the majority of his farming neighbors, who favored a populist worldview similar to that of “Centinel.” As a result, when the Pennsylvania Assembly considered possible senators to represent the rural part of the state in the federal legislature, Maclay received almost unanimous support from both former supporters and critics of the Constitution.69 Maclay was disappointed with the early focus in the Senate on parliamentary procedures, which he detested as “trivial distinctions, and Matters of Mere form . . . punctilio and ceremony.”70 He embraced a sober, “calvinistic morality” and “a pessimistic view of human nature” and expected exemplary behavior according to an exacting code.71 Like John Adams, he could be a harsh judge when someone failed to meet his standards. Unlike Adams, who found fault in his own foibles as well as in those of others, Maclay’s positive assessment of Pennsylvanians reflected self-satisfaction, as well: “I wish it were otherwise (not for what we have, but for what others want). But we have really more republican plainess, and sincere openness of behaviour in Pennsylvania, than in any other place I have ever been.”72 Maclay found an exalted presidential title to be anathema to the Constitution and an idea that would be reviled by American citizens, who had a “horror of Kingly authority.” The aristocracy of the Senate, oligarchic

74

C H APTER 3

juntos, and the innate peril of a weak executive were not Maclay’s concerns. Instead, he feared any taint of monarchism attaching itself to the new government. Like Madison and the House, he associated titles with nobility and hereditary aristocracy and worried that the Senate’s promotion of a strong title would tarnish the republican character of both the president and the Senate. If the Senate proposed a grand presidential title while the House opposed one, “the Characters of the Houses would be aristocratical and democratical.”73 Maclay’s antimonarchical perspective, his biting and entertaining ability to describe people with whom he disagreed (especially Adams, his nemesis on titles and other issues), and his invaluable diary’s distinction as one of the main sources for the title controversy have obscured the vehement and equally genuine republican concerns of his opponents, who worried that a weak president would collude with a powerful few. Like Madison’s notes on the Philadelphia Convention, Maclay’s account of the early workings of the Senate offers access to deliberations not recorded elsewhere. Maclay had been in New York for six weeks and attending the Senate for two weeks (since it had reached a quorum) before he felt compelled to keep a diary. The timing indicates that the title question and other suggestions of grandiose protocol precipitated his decision to keep a personal record of legislative events and of his life in New York City. Luckily for posterity, Maclay’s diary opened the doors of the closed Senate, but its record, which is accurate and engaging, though subjective, only provides part of the picture.74 During ratification, questions about the presidency’s tendency toward dangerous energy or debilitating weakness initiated a discussion about the nature of executive leadership in America that got obscured by the larger focus on ratifying the Constitution. Federalists tended to downplay both concerns about the presidency without really exploring what the briefly outlined federal executive might become, which was not surprising given how little detail the Constitution provided. “Publius” and others devised only mildly substantive arguments against accusations of overpowering monarchal strength in the presidency, often by comparing the powers mentioned in the Constitution as favorable to the hegemony of the British king. Proponents of the Constitution also often insisted on the civic virtue of all elected officials as their main defense against the specter of an anemic president falling prey to corrupt elite conspiracies. Although many critics of the Constitution remained unmoved, the document’s lack of a robust treatment of the executive stymied their “devil’s advocate” role in the examination of the presidency.

PROT ECT IN G T HE P R ES I D E N C Y

75

Throughout much of the ratification rhetoric surrounding the presidency, the commentary reveals an alarm about the executive that was grounded in a fiercely protective impulse. From fears of the usurping power of monarchy and “An Old Whig’s” concern that America might produce “an elective King,” to conspiracy theories involving aristocratic interests and “Centinel’s” warning that the president would become “a mere pageant of state,” the anxious need to protect America’s new leader from the mistakes and abuses of George III brought anything but consensus on how to accomplish it. What was the Constitution’s vision for the presidency, and how did the country achieve it? What was the essence of executive leadership in the new American Republic? With the Constitution enacted, the unfinished business of how to conceive of America’s leader took center stage with the title controversy. The eighteen months prior to the start of the first Congress—the vibrant ratification period (“one of the greatest and most probing public debates in American history”) and the first cycle of federal elections—encompassed a remarkable, freewheeling, and broadly inclusive public information process.75 Newspaper and letter writers, state convention delegates, coffeehouse patrons, and other interested bystanders debated the pros and cons of the Constitution and the new government it instituted. The public apprehended the ratification’s prelude to the upcoming fight over how to address the president fully as well as politicians. As the first of “many debates where the participants invoked issues at the core of the old struggle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists,” the title dispute realigned former Federalists and Antifederalists into new coalitions when those concerned about a weak or strong executive faced off against each other.76 As the members of Congress and the public chose sides, they revealed a changing political dynamic—from the focus on ratifying the Constitution to a new focus based on interpretation and implementation of the document itself. America’s new congressmen understood the thorny position of the legislative branch within the debate over the relative strength of the new executive. They were well aware of vehement antimonarchical sentiments and the expectation that the legislature would constrain the new executive power. They also had heard repeatedly that a conspiracy of elites, in the Senate especially, could all too easily collude with a weak president to threaten the people’s freedoms. In truth, members of both houses of the Congress had good reason to worry about the elite nature of their ranks and how perceptions of federal elitism might play out under the scrutiny of their constituents. In the Senate, all but eleven of the senators had federal legislative experience, and

76

C H APTER 3

three of those eleven had been elected to a federal post but did not attend. The remaining eight senators had been state legislators or had held a distinguished state position, such as attorney general or state election board member. In addition, a senator’s six-year term, election by state legislatures, and no term limits excited alarm. Members of the first House of Representatives hardly enjoyed a less precarious position since state political elites dominated the branch of government most closely associated with protecting the people’s liberties. Half of the House members had already served at the federal level, and all but one had prior federal or state legislative experience— the novice was wealthy former Antifederalist and Virginia lawyer William Giles. Critics who had disdained the Constitution’s proportional representation scheme and found it much too small and elite to truly reflect the views and needs of the populace had reason to feel vindicated.77 Some of those who gathered in New York City felt that the nation’s “demi-gods” were in short supply in Congress (in comparison to the collection of powerful elites who participated in the Continental Congress or in the framing of the Constitution). Among the legislators, “the collective sigh of disappointment at the first Congress resulted from the discovery that the new American nation, assembled in representative form, was not as spectacular as expected.” Congress represented “a sample of the nation’s ruling elite—to many, an alarming realization” since the glitter of the assembled company appeared rather dull.78 This assessment, though, diminishes the effect that the elite makeup of Congress had on the country. The verdict of mediocrity for Congress came from other elite politicians when they looked at their fellows, not from the middling sort of everyday citizens that made up the bulk of the populace. Americans of moderate means realized that power in the new government had fallen to the natural aristocracy of the wealthy state political establishment and wondered what it would mean for them. During the first federal elections, “Real Farmer” hoped “that the various classes of citizens may be really represented in government” to assure leadership by “men of virtue, moderation, and discernment.”79 For these Americans, the perhaps more alarming realization was that Congress was comprised entirely of the politically experienced wellborn from each state, a prospect that fulfilled the worst fears of populist artisans, farmers, and merchants. At the same time, some middling Americans agreed about the lack of demigods in Congress and doubted the effectiveness of those who lacked federal exposure. Although William Maclay was recognized and respected in Pennsylvania, Abigail Adams told her husband John that a Hartford carriage house owner “did no[t] like pensilvana’s chusing a Man who had never been heard of before, he

PROT ECT IN G T HE P R ES I D E N C Y

77

might be a good Man, but he wanted thoses Men in office whose Fame had resounded throughout all the States.” Doubts rose about the country’s unsettled state, no matter one’s outlook.80 The presidential title question became a republican dilemma for the country’s new federal senators and representatives. The movement for a grand executive title pitted two different but equally republican perspectives against each other: one against monarchy and a tyrant’s usurpation of individual rights; and the other against aristocratic oligarchy and the self-interested few who would corrupt a nation’s leader to the detriment of individual rights. The incoming legislators risked being labeled monarchists if they favored a regal title. Yet, if they did not bestow a strong title on the head of what many at the time saw as a weak executive, the Senate and the House risked being damned and labeled aristocracies for subverting the authority of the president. Congress’s republican dilemma reflected the American people’s republican dilemma regarding both national leadership and the hold that titles continued to have on the public. Adherents on both sides of the title dispute thought their position strengthened the Republic.

Ch a p ter 4

Debating a “Doubtful Power” The Legislative Battle Engaged

The inaugural spring of 1789 held celebration and uncertainty. The United States possessed a new Constitution, but no one knew how or whether it would work. New York City hummed with excitement as everyone prepared to receive Congress and the president. Entrepreneurial newspapermen sought financial backing as they prepared to report the House debates and workings of the new government. The first legislators to show up encountered remodeling still under way at Federal Hall and a frustrating absence of colleagues. Although March 4 had been set as the date for Congress to convene, quorum requirements limited work to unofficial discussions until the requisite numbers arrived—on April 1 for the House and April 6 for the Senate. The votes for president could not be counted until the quorum in the Senate was achieved.1 As the country anticipated Washington’s inauguration, speculation grew about a title that was suitable for him. In early February, French minister Comte de Moustier heard mention of “Elected Majesty,” “Most Serene Highness,” and “Most Illustrious Highness.”2 At the same time, the pseudonymous “Harrington” thought that “ ‘His Majesty elect,’ or ‘His elective Majesty, G. W. President of the United States’ ” would place the president on “an equality with any crowned head upon earth, and add dignity, rank and consequence to our nation, and at the same time would be a perpetual memento

78

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

79

to the man, that all the honors and majesty, with which he was cloathed, were derived solely from, the voice of the people.”3 But underscoring the diversity of opinion, future U.S. attorney general William Bradford reported from Philadelphia: “Some will have it ‘Serene Highness’—some ‘Excellency’— And some plain republicans, argue against any title whatsoever.”4 By April, John Armstrong heard talk of an executive title among legislators gathering in New York, and Pennsylvania representative Peter Muhlenberg, unhappy with the title rumors, observed that “from appearances I think ‘Highness’ bids fair for a Majority.” Muhlenberg supported “no titles, but such as are fairly derivd from the Constitution,” yet he acknowledged the problem that Washington’s stature brought to the presidency: “We might establish a precedent, and annex a title to the presidency which would perhaps not apply, with the Successors of General Washington.”5 Unlike Muhlenberg, Pennsylvania senator William Maclay brooked no compromises over titling the country’s new executive. He believed that conferring a high-toned title on the president verged on the unconstitutional and broached “straining the Constitution” with “the exercise of a doubtful power.” Maclay maintained that “a republican Government was guaranteed to every State in the Union” under the Constitution and pronounced a grandiose title and other trappings of “kingly Government” completely “out of the question.”6 The consideration of an executive branch title became official legislative business with Virginia senator Richard Henry Lee’s motion of April 23 (the same day Washington arrived in the city). For the next three weeks, the Senate and House, individually and jointly, grappled with the “first dispute between the Senate and the House”—the question of an exalted executive title, which a majority of the Senate favored to protect presidential authority and the House unanimously rejected as overly monarchical.7 On May 14, after a showdown that strained relations between the chambers, the Senate “capitulated for the sake of preserving harmony with the House,” and agreed to address the nation’s executive with the republican simplicity of the office as named in the Constitution, “ ‘PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES,’ ” reluctantly forgoing the “addition of TITLE.”8 The advent of a new government dominated the news in the weeks preceding the official start of Congress in April 1789. Newspapers throughout the country reported on February’s presidential election and the rumored unanimous choice of Washington (“who floats upon the full tide of universal approbation”), concurrent birthday celebrations for the hero and presumed president, and the arrival of legislators in New York.9 After the

80

C H APTER 4

Senate counted the electoral votes, joint committees of House and Senate members worked with city officials to assure successful receptions for both Washington and Adams. Local papers began publishing House proceedings that other newspapers reprinted, and coverage also focused on the receptions that Washington received in other cities as he traveled to New York, as well as on preparations for his arrival.10 John Jay offered “Apartments in his noble house” that Adams used until the middle of May, when he found a house for Abigail and his family more than a mile north of the city at Richmond Hill (now part of Greenwich Village), but the arrangements for Washington’s residence were much less casual.11 Congress appointed a joint committee to oversee the receptions of the president and vice president, and stipulated that Samuel Osgood prepare his splendid home at 3 Cherry Street, which had been used by the presidents of the Confederation Congress, “in proper condition for the residence and use of the President of the United States.” Congress provided the handsome sum of $8,000 for the project (Figure 3).12 In the spring of 1785, Thomas Lee Shippen had been struck by the magnificence of the Osgood house when he visited his uncle, Richard Henry Lee, during Lee’s tenure as president of the Confederation Congress. The young man told his father: “I find my uncle here in a Palace, and think indeed that he does the honors of it, with as much ease and dignity as if he had been always crowned with a regal diadem.” He praised his room, the opulent furnishings, and a “profusion of the delicacies and luxuries of good living.”13 In her vivid description of the refurbishing of the house during the spring of 1789, Sarah Robinson, Osgood’s niece by marriage, mentioned that Osgood and William Duer “pitched on their wives as being likely to do it better.” She declared that by the day before Washington’s arrival, the “house really did honour to” both Maria Osgood and Kitty Duer, who had “spared no pains nor expense.” The Osgood house now boasted “the best of furniture in every room—the greatest quantity of plate and china that I ever saw before, the whole of the first and second story is papered and the floors covered with the richest kind of Turkey and Wilton Carpets.”14 Before leaving Mount Vernon, Martha Washington packed “whole wardrobes of clothing for herself, her husband, and the two grandchildren who would accompany her to New York, as well as a multitude of household items necessary for the family’s comfort and pleasure in a rented house,” but much of the furnishings came via federal coffers.15 The Corporation of the City of New York also made an exceptional commitment to President Washington’s surroundings—the city provided a level of unprecedented security in the form of two manned sentry boxes

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

81

outside his residence.16 Local merchant and land speculator George Scriba proposed to underwrite the expense of a personal guard for Washington, but many found the idea “too monarchical” and “insisted that the best guard for the President was in the affection of the people.” Nonetheless, the protection of the father and savior of his country and his family weighed heavily on the minds of city officials.17 As far as we know, New York’s sentry box protection for Washington— which accompanied him the following year from Osgood house to his next residence, the spectacular Macomb mansion on Broadway—was as unique as the man himself, and not employed for any other citizen or official (Figure 4). The city utilized a daytime police force, as well as a night watch, but assault, robbery, occasional riots, and other disturbances still plagued the diverse port. Quite possibly in anticipation of New York’s role as the temporary seat of government and Washington’s host (and protector), publisher Archibald McLean hammered on the need for better vigilance from magistrates and solid citizens, as well as more watchmen and lamp lighting. The day before Washington’s arrival, the Common Council directed the local constabulary to “execute the utmost vigilance in preservation of peace and good order.” As an extra precaution, the city quietly established a permanent sentry near Washington’s home.18 The adulation and cautious care surrounding Washington, so evident in the congressional and city provisions for the Osgood house, highlight the convergence of the Republic’s protectiveness toward the presidency with its deep need to honor and safeguard its savior. Washington as president reinforced the impulse toward protectiveness, even as his stature confused the people’s consideration of the most appropriate mode of address for the office. As the inauguration neared, anticipation of Washington’s presidency fed the burgeoning uproar about a title. Even before April 7, when John Armstrong noted talk about a presidential title more dignified than “Excellency,” a few newspapers toyed with references to “his Highness GEORGE WASHINGTON,” while others balked at the idea.19 In the Massachusetts Centinel, “a Federalist” reported that “much has been said in the papers, on the subject of the style of address in the General Government,” and entered the fray with the following: “The Most Illustrious” for the president, “His Excellency” for the vice president, “The Most Honourable” for senators, and “The Honourable” for representatives.20 When Philadelphia’s Federal Gazette reprinted this proposal, “an American Whig” objected to the appellations as “pompous” and “impious”: “empty titles will never insure respect to any person. . . . In the case of our beloved President, any title that could be invented, would but lessen his

82

C H APTER 4

Figure 3. The First Presidential Mansion, No. 1 Cherry Street; Osgood House (423427), by George Hayward, no date. Osgood House had been the residence for presidents of the Confederation Congress and served as George Washington’s first residence as president. He moved to the larger Macomb mansion in February 1790. Macomb House was located in a quieter neighborhood (at 39-41 Broadway) and had a lovely view of the Hudson River from the back of the house. Emmet Collection, Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs, New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.

dignity. General Washington, President Washington, or simply, Washington, carries more glory in it, than if as many titles were added.”21 In the New York Daily Gazette, an anonymous item expounded on the penchant for titles in America and recommended “Highness” for the new national executive. According to the piece, Americans loved honorifics despite the Constitution’s provision against titles of nobility: “However conformable this article may be, to genuine republicanism, it is nevertheless repugnant to the genius and habits of the people . . . there are none fonder of the sound of a title than the people of these States; Indeed it is, in general deemed, a high breach of good breeding, not to apply it, on every possible occasion.” During the war, the “profusion of titles” often extended “down to the fourth, fifth, and sixth degree . . . of assistants, beef weighers, rum drawers, and oat measurers.” Men still used the title of “Excellency” long after they left office, newspapers employed “Honorable” incessantly for aldermen and judges, “and as for the title of Esquire, it is almost indiscriminately lavished on any one, who is in the smallest degree above a vagabond; nay in some instances it is given even to servants.”22

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

83

Figure 4. City Watchman, by William P. Chappel, 1870s. Chappel painted his memory of a city watchman (sentry) and his watch box (sentry box) on Elizabeth Street in New York City, 1809. It is likely that the sentry boxes stationed near Washington’s presidential residences in the city, Osgood House and Macomb House, were similar. Edward W. C. Arnold Collection of New York Prints, Maps, and Pictures (54.90.500). Copyright by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Source: Art Resource, New York.

The Daily Gazette’s anonymous correspondent accepted the country’s use of titles and believed that a grand presidential title added necessary consequence to the federal executive. Echoing William Barton’s defense of a coat of arms for the executive branch as no “improper distinction of ranks,” the newspaper item proposed that the president “be stiled his HIGHNESS,” and assured, “this is not a title of nobility but of office, and ought to be given to our Supreme Magistrate.” It further argued that, “titles to certain important offices will be essential to the dignity of the general government,” and suggested “his Excellency” for the vice president and “Most Honorable” for senators and the chief justice.23 Others in American society detested the proliferation of titles (even though they recognized the trend) and advocated moderation. One writer admitted: “Nothing shows the propensity of the Americans . . . to monarchy more, than their disposition to give titles to all our officers of government. Honorable and esquire have become as common in America, as Captain is in France—count in Germany—or my lord, in Italy.” However, all was illusion: “The titles of grace—wisdom—majesty—holiness—highness—

84

C H APTER 4

mightiness—etc. are all nothing but little and big bones, which are thrown at the great bull-dogs in power in Europe, to keep them from biting off the heads of their subjects.” Since Americans have “nothing to fear from our rulers,” they degrade themselves and insult their leaders “by ascribing to them the attributes of the Deity.”24 Another correspondent with a decidedly cynical bent had no objection to titles as long as they reflected reality: “Instead of Excellency, Serene-Highness, Illustrious, and Most Honorable, we should be forced to address some of our great men with the titles of your Turbulence, your Littleness, most Factious, most Stupid, etc. etc. etc.”25 Into this atmosphere, where anticipation for Washington filled the air and a grand executive title hovered as a topic of interest, John Adams arrived on April 20, three days ahead of the president-elect. Declared “the glory of our town and . . . one of the ornaments of the age” by a gentleman in his Massachusetts hometown of Braintree, Adams began his trip with an

Figure 5. John Adams, by John Trumbull, 1793. Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum, Harvard University Portrait Collection, Gift of Andrew Craigie to Harvard College, 1794, H73. Copyright by President and Fellows of Harvard College.

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

85

escort “to the county of Middesex by Col. TYLER’s troop of Horse.”26 As he neared New York, the city’s horse brigade met Adams and, along with congressmen and others on horses and in carriages, formed a parade to John Jay’s house. Cannon fire announced Adams’s arrival.27 An ode to “The VICE-PRESIDENT” applauded his revolutionary motion for independence, “which fix’d our empire’s fate.” Inevitably though, the tribute’s focus switched to Washington, who “commanded ‘wars to cease,’ ” and praised Adams by underscoring his secondary position, “his country pours its honours down, And ranks him next—her first, her darling Son” (Figures 5 and 6).28 Although the question of an executive title did not emerge out of the blue with Adams’s appearance, the issue escalated with his presence. Virginia representative Alexander White expressed “astonishment at the propensity . . . in some Gentlemen to ostentation Rank and Titles,” noting that “since the Arrival of the Vice President the Spirit seems to have become more prevalent, he addressed the Senate by the Name of the most Honourable.”29

Figure 6. Abigail Adams, by unidentified artist, ca. 1795 (N0150.1955). Fenimore Art Museum, Cooperstown, New York. Photograph by Richard Walker.

86

C H APTER 4

Almost immediately, Adams pressed the Senate on “whether the Speaker (of the House) should be stiled honorable” in communications between the houses, but the senators rejected the idea.30 In addition, his first speech to the Senate referred to Washington’s prestige among the pantheon of titled world leaders: “If we look over the catalogue of the first magistrates of nations, whether they have been denominated Presidents or Consuls, Kings or Princes, where shall we find one, whose commanding talents and virtues, whose over-ruling good fortune have so completely united all heart and voices in his favor?” The unspoken but implied query was: How should we address the peerless Washington?31 Concern about an executive title amplified with Washington’s imminent arrival. It is no coincidence that the formal motion for a joint committee to consider “what TITLES it will be proper to annex to the OFFICES of President and Vice President of the United States—if any other than those given in the Constitution” occurred on April 23, 1789, the same day Washington entered a jubilant New York.32 From the beginning, the debates that followed focused on a presidential, rather than vice presidential, title. According to Senator William Maclay, Adams instigated the title motion (“this base business, had been went into solely . . . on the Motion of our President [Adams, president of the Senate]”), although the resolution was moved by Lee and seconded by Senator Paine Wingate of New Hampshire.33 The combination of Adams and Lee as champions of an exalted title was formidable. Adams’s position as vice president, Lee’s prominence in Virginia and the Confederation Congress, and their linked revolutionary stature, assured them both respect and political influence. Convinced that “the giving of Titles would hurt” the Senate’s reputation, Maclay and Maryland senator Charles Carroll attempted, to no avail, to have the motion for a titles committee stricken the following day.34 The only change to the resolution was the addition of “STYLE or” before “TITLE;” “style” was another word for “title” with an arguably milder allusion to hereditary aristocracy and monarchy. The Senate assigned Lee, Ralph Izard of South Carolina, and Tristram Dalton of Massachusetts to the committee, which had the additional responsibility of deciding how and who would administer the inaugural “oath prescribed by the Constitution.” Perhaps the Senate combined the consideration of a presidential title with the administration of the oath of office because the chamber expected to attach any agreed-upon title to the oath.35 The next day, House members briefly discussed formal communication between the two houses, precipitated in part by a Senate proposal for the transmission of messages: “Messages should be sent from the Senate by their

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

87

Secretary, but . . . Messages from the House of Representatives should be carried by two Members.” The implied superiority of the Senate over the House irritated the representatives (“disapprobation glowed in every Countenance”), who desired harmony with the Senate but wanted to be treated as equals.36 The House then immersed itself in the day’s main item of business, the specifics of a revenue act. In the middle of this intricate discussion, the speaker received the Senate’s message desiring a joint committee on titles. The House named James Madison (Virginia), Egbert Benson (New York), Fisher Ames (Massachusetts), Daniel Carroll (Maryland), and Roger Sherman (Connecticut) to its titles committee, but not without comment.37 Despite the pressing need to forge the details of a tariff, the representatives broke away from their deliberation to immediately clarify the chamber’s firm antimonarchical position against an exalted executive title. Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina found both titles and the appointment of a formal committee on them to be “very improper.” Virginia’s Theodorick Bland considered a committee acceptable, but disapproved of any title beyond what the Constitution dictates: “I will be averse to exceeding a single iota beyond the limits of the constitution.” Tucker reluctantly acceded to naming a committee, but made his opposition clear: “It appears to me out of their power to give title to any person whatever. We are republican and ought not to encourage m[onarchy] or rank. We ought to set a good example.”38 The views of their peers coincided with those of Bland and Tucker, and Alexander White predicted that the House members on the committee “most certainly will not agree to the addition of any Titles.”39 Several House members wondered about “discord” with the Senate, but Tucker maintained that committee members had every right to “refuse to concur” if the senators intended to “deviate from republican principles.”40 Members rankled at the joint committee on titles as yet another overbearing, procedural dictate from the Senate (“a great deal of silly Parade”) like the demeaning proposal for sending messages.41 Maclay noted the rising disgruntlement of representatives over the “pompous and Lordly distinctions which the Senate have Manifested a disposition to establish between the Two Houses.”42 Secretary of the Senate Otis interpreted these rumblings of House displeasure in terms that recalled ratification concerns over corrupt power blocs forming in the upper house: “The House have some jealous young politicians who seem wonderfully afraid of the Aristocracy of the Senate—This is an unfavorable Sympton.”43 In the Senate, the warring republican viewpoints on the underlying power of the presidency—the too strong executive as a usurping monarch

88

C H APTER 4

versus the too weak president as a tool of an aristocracy in the Senate— began to produce rifts. Maclay opposed “high handed Measures” such as proposals for “a most expensive and enormous Machine of a Federal Judiciary, pompous Titles . . . coercive laws for taking the Oaths.” He attributed these “highly impolitic” ideas to “notorious Antifederalist” Richard Henry Lee, but other senators must have held similar opinions since Maclay believed he had “sacrificed every chance of being popular and every grain of influence in the Senate” with his resistance to schemes he found unrepublican and unconstitutional. Lee’s advocacy of an executive title, a strong judiciary, and loyalty oaths remained consistent with his long-standing worries about a weak, susceptible president succumbing to Senate cabals and can be interpreted as protective of the presidency, rather than merely excessive or imperious.44 Intruding on and underlying the first week of the title debate, Washington’s inauguration on April 30, 1789, gave rise to New York’s second grandiose public spectacle in eight days, the finale in a series of celebrations spanning the distance from Mount Vernon to the temporary seat of government. Anticipation of the inauguration and heaven’s blessings on America’s constitutional experiment filled the air: “We have heard much of the BIRTH DAY of our COLUMBIA: her natal hour is dated on the 19th of APRIL, 1775. TOMORROW is the Day of her ESPOUSALS—when, in presence of the KING of KINGS, the solemn Compact will be ratified between her, and the darling object of her choice.45 An ode praised Washington’s upcoming presidency: Heaven-born Freedom, sent to save, By actions, glorious as brave, With every godlike virtue fraught Which either peace or war hath taught, Behold your Hero come! Call’d by his country’s urgent voice, O’er her high councils to preside, By ev’ry breast’s united choice, Call’d, the storm-beat helm to guide, He leaves his rural dome.46 “A scene such as the proudest monarch never enjoyed,” Inauguration Day started at nine in the morning with church bells ringing for half an hour throughout New York.47 At noon, carriages containing the inaugural committees of Congress and other officials—along with nearly five hun-

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

89

dred horse troops, artillery, grenadiers, and light infantry—escorted Washington to Federal Hall in the state coach.48 The streets thronged with “dense crowds of people, as far as the eye could see,” and British consul general John Temple milled “amongst the Mob.”49 Washington took the oath of office from the balcony that adjoined the Senate chamber, which allowed “the greatest number of the people of the United States, and without distinction” to witness the occasion.50 Robert Livingston, chancellor of New York, administered the oath and proclaimed, “LONG LIVE GEORGE WASHINGTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.”51 Until Livingston’s announcement rang out, “silence had been preserved by this immense assemblage,” but the chancellor’s words unleashed “thundering peals, as seemed to shake the foundations of the city.” The new president bowed to the crowd, artillery resounded, and bells “rang out a peal of joy.”52 Given the opportunity to see “this Great Good Person,” the diverse crowd seemed “inspired with a shared joy on the occasion,” and the festivities ensued without a hitch “nor, as is unusual with mobs, a single interruption to the procession—not a disagreeable scene in the streets, appeared thro’ the whole day.” The president’s demeanor convinced one spectator that “the character ever given of General WASHINGTON, falls greatly short of his merit—and that Heaven has designed him as the instrument whereby we may be saved from ourselves.”53 After his inaugural speech, Washington proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel for a “divine ser vice.”54 The evening brought fireworks “greeted with tumultuous applause,” and all over the city, from the Spanish ambassador’s home to a beer house, buildings displayed “the likeness of our Hero, illuminated,” as well as symbols of Washington’s greatness—“Wisdom, Justice, Fortitude, Sun, Moon, Stars, Spanish Arms, etc.”55 The crowd was still so dense at the end of the evening that Washington, with his aides Tobias Lear and David Humphreys, walked back “amongst the crowd” to Osgood House, “the throng of people being so great as not to permit a carriage to pass through it.”56 The evolution of Washington’s inaugural address highlighted the most influential political friendship of the first session of Congress, between George Washington and James Madison. Significantly, the WashingtonMadison collaboration, with its reciprocal support that grew from a strong mutual trust, influenced the outcome of the title controversy. The two Virginians had been close for several years, and their participation in the Philadelphia Convention, commitment to the Constitution, and belief in “a powerful and extremely republican government” cemented their bond. For most of the first session (which ended September 29), Washington had no official executive department counselors and instead sought advice from a

90

C H APTER 4

small circle of his most trusted friends—Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and Henry Knox. During this formative period, Madison functioned as the president’s indispensable adviser on issues as diverse as “relations with Congress, etiquette, appointments and policy.”57 South Carolina representative William Smith observed what must have been apparent to many, that Madison was “much in the confidence of the President and he will hereafter stand a chance of being President himself.”58 As Washington anticipated his election as president, he quietly approached Madison in January 1789, to review his proposed inaugural address. Washington’s aide, David Humphreys, had produced an exhaustive, seventythree-page draft full of policy directives, which Washington sent to Montpelier for Madison’s opinion. Although only fragments of the Humphreys version remain, the speech (which Madison later termed “so strange a production”) had a paternal tone and resembled a British king’s address to Parliament.59 Toward the end of February, “the two men scrapped Humphrey’s text in favor of a shorter speech drawn up by Madison and edited by Washington.”60 The Washington-Madison collaboration produced a self-effacing yet solemn and assured inaugural address that required less than fifteen minutes to deliver. The final speech reflected their shared dedication to the delicate balance of personal liberty and the republican principle of civic virtue. It asked the Almighty for guidance, emphasized Washington’s sense of duty and his preference for no salary, expressed his view that the legislature rather than the president should initiate policy, warned against local or party jealousies, and advocated amendments that would fortify the “characteristic rights of freemen” and allay any lingering “objections” and “inquietude” toward the Constitution. Washington stressed love of country, “public harmony,” and the responsibility of popular sovereignty: “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as DEEPLY, perhaps as FINALLY staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”61 Attending with his peers in the Senate chamber on that inaugural afternoon, Massachusetts representative Fisher Ames “sat entranced. It seemed to me an allegory in which virtue was personified, and addressing those whom she would make her votaries.” Washington’s manner appeared “grave almost to sadness; his modesty, actually shaking; his voice deep, a little tremulous, and so low as to call for close attention.” Ames found that the overall effect “produced emotions of the most affecting kind upon the members.” Senator John Langdon of New Hampshire thought that Washington spoke with “a Majesty, Dignity and propriety, that almost exceeded himself.”

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

91

Langdon paid Washington the ultimate tribute when he confirmed that the man had matched his exalted persona: “He Appears in the Cabinet, as in the Field A Washington.”62 Maclay found less inspiration in the moment, although he empathized with “this great Man [who] was agitated and embarrassed more than ever he was by the leveled Cannon or pointed Musket.” Washington “trembled, and several times could scarce make out to read, tho it must be supposed he had often read it before.” (Maclay seemingly did not consider that Washington’s halting presentation may have been due to failing eyesight and the need of his reading glasses, which he did not use for this occasion.) When the president gestured with his hand for emphasis at one point, Maclay found it “ungainly,” and “wished . . . this first of Men, had read off, his address, in the plainest Manner without ever taking his Eyes From, the paper. For I felt hurt, that he was not first in every thing.”63 Washington’s confidence in Madison engendered an inaugural address that emphasized core principles of republican governance, downplayed any hint of monarchy in Washington’s interpretation of his role as president, and, according to Ames and Langdon, deeply touched members of Congress. Wealthy Philadelphia banker William Bingham had encouraged Madison to use ceremony and speeches to underscore principles “which dignify, adorn and aggrandize a Nation,” adding that “King’s Speeches from the Throne and the Replies of Parliament” often had this intent.64 However, Madison and Washington wielded the address with broad brushstrokes of republican reassurance to grace the canvas of an unsettled American society. The public responded favorably to the address and its republican emphasis, “which comes so feelingly home to the bosom of every American.”65 Washington’s “mild, conciliating language—his strongly implied opinion in favour of such alterations as shall improve, and not injure the Constitution— his truly republican address” provided evidence of a “manly style, and truly democratic simplicity” that eschewed the “vanity of official distinctions.” The inaugural address displayed “his truly illustrious character, as must endear him more than ever to his grateful and admiring countrymen.” As for a title: “The name of WASHINGTON is sufficient, without the tinsel of factitious consequence.”66 Washington trusted Madison’s political instincts and ability to set the right tone, and his subsequent reliance on Madison indicates his satisfaction with their partnership. In the back-and-forth of official responses to the inaugural address over the next two and half weeks, Washington enlisted Madison to write his answers to the replies from both the House and

92

C H APTER 4

Senate: “as you have begun, so I could wish you to finish, the good work . . . that there may be an accordance in this business.”67 Since Madison also drafted the House response, he was, essentially, “in dialogue with himself ” as he single-handedly created most of the first official communications between the legislative and executive branches.68 The legislative replies to the inaugural address acquired significant political import within the unfolding title debate since each chamber’s approach to the salutation used in its reply reflected the differences of opinion on an executive title. The House reply proceeded without delay, benefiting from the dual advantages of Madison’s explicit encouragement from Washington to finish what he had begun and the members’ defiant unanimity against all lofty titles.69 Five days after the inauguration, the House members of the joint committee delivered their terse report “that it is not proper to annex any style or title to the respective styles or titles of office expressed in the Constitution.” That same day, the House approved its reply to the president, addressed “to GEORGE WASHINGTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,” with the simple salutation “Sir.” In the short message of congratulation and admiration, the House protected itself somewhat from the decision to forego a grand title by alluding to Washington and “the luster of a character which has so many titles to admiration.”70 Madison believed the reply’s use of a simple title symbolically underscored a commitment to republican principles by the House that mirrored the same intent within the Constitution. He indicated as much to Thomas Jefferson: “You will see in the caption of the address that we have pruned the ordinary stile of the degrading appendages of Excellency, Esqr. and c. and restored it to its naked dignity. Titles to both the President and vice President were formally and unanimously condemned by a vote of the H. of Reps.” The House example sent a clear signal to “shew to the friends of Republicanism that our new Government was not meant to substitute either Monarchy or Aristocracy, and that the genius of the people is as yet adverse to both.”71 In the Senate, as advocates and foes fought over an exalted executive title, the controversy ensnared its reply to the inaugural address until the chamber reached a decision. Paine Wingate reported: “In consequence of this disagreement the Senate have postponed as yet, their making answer to the Presidents speech, which to the public may have a strange appearance.”72 Although the Senate approved text drafted by William S. Johnson (Connecticut), William Paterson (New Jersey), and Charles Carroll (Maryland) on May 7, it delayed the presentation of its reply to the president until May 18, four days after the Senate finally yielded to the House in the title dis-

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

93

pute. The Senate charged Adams with delivering the Senate reply (as unadorned of high-toned titles as the House reply had been), an honor that may have chafed a bit.73 Although the Senate capitulated to the House, resolving “that the present address be—‘To the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES’—without addition of TITLE,” the committee first went on record to recommend the title “HIS HIGHNESS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND PROTECTOR OF THEIR LIBERTIES.” In addition, the Senate’s final resolution (delivered on May 14) began with a preamble rationale of “titles of respectability,” which referenced the conventions of high distinction for leaders of “civilized Nations, whether under Monarchical or Republican forms of government.” The preamble also stated that “it would be proper to annex respectable Title to the office of President of the United States.”74 The Senate then resolved in favor of the simple “President of the United States,” and revealed the pivotal role played by the House’s reply to the inaugural address, thus demonstrating the significance of the WashingtonMadison collaboration on the outcome. But the Senate, desirous of preserving Harmony with the House of Representatives, where the practice lately observed in presenting an Address to the President was without the addition of Title, think it proper for the present to act in conformity with the practice of the other House: Therefore resolved, that the present address be—“To the President of the United States”—without addition of Title.75 The reply drafted by Madison (with Washington’s tacit empowerment) and approved by the House (“purged . . . of all titles whatsoever except the Constitutional one”) acted as a bold line in the sand (Figure 7). The Senate chose not to cross it in the interest of congressional harmony and in recognition of the political cooperation stressed by a compelling President Washington in his inaugural appeal.76 While Congress contended with the question of how to address the president, the New York papers used a bit more restraint than some New England papers in their coverage of the inauguration. In New York papers, Washington was “his Excellency,” “ILLUSTRIOUS PRESIDENT,” or the repeatedly capitalized “PRESIDENT.”77 A few New England newspapers, however, titled Washington as “Highness.” Although it ran a New York paper’s account of Inauguration Day, the Massachusetts Spy used editorial license to insert the heading of “His HIGHNESS’S SPEECH” and referred to Washington as “His HIGHNESS, The PRESIDENT GENERAL of

94

C H APTER 4

United Columbia.”78 When the New-Hampshire Recorder picked up an item on what the president wore, it added a “Highness” flourish that created the juxtaposition of royalty with sturdy American broadcloth: “At the late inauguration of the illustrious President-General of the United States, his Highness was dressed in a complete suit of elegant Broad cloth, of AMERICAN manufacture.”79 During the inaugural spring, everyday references to President Washington as “his Highness” increased in frequency and general acceptance. After Boston merchant (and brother of Henry Knox) William Knox extolled Washington’s universal popularity as “the only man which Man, Woman and Child, Whig and Tory, Fed’s and Antifed’s appear to agree in,” he divulged that “many speculatory opinions sported what the stile of address shall be of the President General, Whether his Highness—Most Illustrious—or as usual his Excellency.” Knox predicted that his correspondent (Ohio Company agent and future governor of the Mississippi Territory Winthrop Sargent) “would declare in favor of His Highness.” Philadelphia merchant Richard Bache, postmaster general during and after the Revolutionary War (and son-in-law of Benjamin Franklin), mentioned to his wife, Sally, that he “had the honor of a very gracious bow” from Washington when they glimpsed each other through the inaugural crowd. Bache then off handedly remarked, “I intend to wait on his Highness this morning.”80 New Jersey representative Lambert Cadwalader found the “Agitation” in New York over Washington’s arrival “extended to all Ranks of People,” and confessed: “I have had my Share of it.” His landlady, Mary Daubing, was overwrought, and “her Mind was so overcome by the Expectation of seeing the President that it affected her whole Frame in a very uncommon Manner. It was so painful that tho’ she promised herself much Gratification, she wished it over.” Representative James Jackson (Georgia) took solace that “a Washington” of such humility headed the country since “the Giddy populace who ten Years since would have shuddered at the bare idea of a King, are so far now on the other extreme, that would he accept I believe a Crown would be the consequence.”81 Confirming Jackson’s conclusion, Representative Tucker bemoaned the irrationality of men who praised liberty yet favored royal distinction for the president. He blamed the Senate for endorsing title enthusiasm rather than extinguishing it: “If this Folly were not encouraged it might in Time wear off. But unfortunately the Wisdom of the Senate gives it Sanction. They have taken it up very seriously and I believe they have bestow’d more time in debating on that than on any other Subject whatever.” Tucker believed the people had “the most intolerable Rage for Monarchy that can be

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

95

imagined. Verily I believe that a very great Proportion are ripe for a King and wou’d salute the president as such with all the Folly of Enthusiasm.” He admitted that monarchical fervor was not new: “This Spirit has been prevailing here for a great while, but I was in hopes that when they saw that the Senators were but Men and even the President but a Man, the Rage wou’d subside. This however is not the Case and nothing is talk’d of but Titles for the President and Vice President.”82 Tucker retained only a modicum of faith that the House would prevail in its resistance to titles. The sealed deliberations of the other chamber raised suspicions that “the Senate . . . have done more on this Subject than they have inform’d us of.” He feared the worst: “What will be the Issue of all this I know not; but the Word HIGHNESS is in the Mouth of every Fool and Knave—and even HIS SACRED MAJESTY has been seriously talk’d of. I am all out of Patience when I think how we have suffer’d ourselves to be duped into Measures destructive of every Republican Idea.” Tucker’s main comfort rested with his faith in Washington’s disapproval of a grand title. Although he possessed no specifics on how the notion “set upon the Mind of the President,” Tucker presumed that “if he is the Man I take him to be and hope to find him, they must give him not a little pain.”83 The Comte de Moustier’s assessment of the climate surrounding the inaugural agreed with Jackson and Tucker. The French minister thought the “head of this vast republic . . . under the modest title of President enjoys several royal prerogatives” and considered Washington “the only man who merits filling this eminent position.” He noted that the Americans realized a regal presidential title could “weaken the foundation of a government, which is based only on trust.” However, the atmosphere was such that “the most zealous federalists had proposed seizing this moment to give their idol a title that would approximate him more closely to a true sovereign. Serene Highness seemed the most suitable to them. The enthusiasm of the masses was pushed to the point that they could even have been made to approve Majesty. But it is feared that this would displease the very man who is the object of it.”84 The paralysis experienced by the Senate over issuing its reply to the inaugural address derived—more or less inevitably—from the circular arguments and barely civil confrontations over lofty titles occurring behind its closed doors. These interactions, especially between John Adams and William Maclay (with additional Maclay rancor reserved for Richard Henry Lee), contained the stuff of high drama as memorialized by the often-acerbic Maclay in his diary. The two Federalists, who so resembled each other in disposition, represented diametrically opposed republican philosophies of

96

C H APTER 4

executive power: Adams, concerned that power blocs in the Senate would weaken or corrupt the president, championed an exalted title to boost executive authority; Maclay, suspicious of presidential supremacy and committed to the revolutionary rejection of George III, abhorred a grand executive title and its royal connotations (Figures 8 and 9). The title debate intensified after Adams described Washington’s inaugural address as “his most gracious speech” during a brief session of the Senate and precipitated his first sustained altercation with Maclay. Writing of Adams’s remark that evening, Maclay determined: “I cannot approve of this.” The following day, he reminded the chamber: “Mr. President [Adams, president of the Senate], we have lately had a hard struggle for our liberty against Kingly Authority the Minds of Men are still heated, everything related to the Species of Government is odious to the People.” Maclay moved that the words be struck: “The Words . . . are the same that are usually placed before the Speech of his Britannic Majesty—I know they will give offense. I consider them as improper.” A surprised Adams responded that he was “one of

Figure 7. James Madison, by Nicolas Eustache Maurin, ca. 1825–1828. National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource, New York.

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

97

Figure 8. Richard Henry Lee, by Charles Willson Peale, ca. 1795–1805. National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource, New York.

the first in the late Contest,” but strove for “a dignifyed and respectable Government” and simply followed the example of the “Government under which we had lived so long and happily.”85 Maclay believed the public to be against monarchical trappings and worried especially about former Antifederalists (many of his constituents) who remained suspicious of the Constitution’s executive. He contended that “a Revolution in the Sentiments of People, respecting Government” had occurred, and Americans despised “even the modes” of the British system. During ratification, critics of the Constitution predicted a “transition from it to Kingly Government, and all the trappings and Splendor of Royalty.” Maclay was certain these critics would pounce “if such a thing as this appeared in our Minutes . . . [and] would not fail to represent it as the first Step of the Ladder in the Assent to royalty.” Adams thought no one “could take offense at it,” but he demurred because “he had been long abroad, and did not know how the tempers of the People might be now,” and the language was stricken from the minutes.86

98

C H APTER 4

Figure 9. William Maclay, artist unidentified, from a miniature, no date. Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Adams later approached Maclay and attempted to explain his reasons for favoring a high title, elegant language, and deliberate care regarding the dignity of the president—his expectation of executive weakness in power struggles with the Senate and the dangers of corruption from an imbalance of power. Adams’s explanation was lost on Maclay, who found Adams longwinded and privately ridiculed him: “He got on the Subject of Checks to Government—and the Balances of power—his Tale was long he seemed to expect some answer I caught the last Word, and said undoubtedly without a balance there can be no equilibrium, and so left him hanging in Geometry.”87 Although Maclay’s joke could be viewed as “a complete failure to comprehend what Adams was talking about,” he probably understood the point Adams made and chose to dismiss the saliency of the argument.88

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

99

The differences of republican perspective between the two men created a gulf in their ability to communicate effectively. Adams’s equation of monarchical forms with an “efficient” government (a president in balance with the legislature) led him to discount the depth of antimonarchical feeling among the same American population that glorified Washington as a kingsurrogate. Maclay’s focus on the perils of excessive executive power and his corresponding faith in the legislative branch hindered his willingness to consider the dangers of a weak president.89 A need to protect the presidency from monarchy and hereditary aristocracy fed the disconnect between Maclay and the House of Representatives and those, like Adams, concerned about guarding the presidency from unscrupulous, state-empowered cabals or corrupt foreign influences. Over the next two weeks, titles “in one shape or other . . . engaged almost the Whole time of the Senate,” with advocates of lofty honorifics losing ground due to resolute House resistance, the precedent the House set with the salutation of “Sir” in its swift reply to the inaugural address, and Maclay’s arguments and delaying tactics, which eventually gained him credibility with some of his peers. Earlier worries about his unpopularity subsided: “Good Men take me by the hand. And I am convinced my firmness has not lost me a single Friend that deserved the name.”90 The days following the first sustained confrontation between Adams and Maclay saw a series of related skirmishes. Senators Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut), Ralph Izard (South Carolina), and Richard Henry Lee (Virginia) proposed various additional ideas designed to enhance the federal executive’s stature, such as placing the president’s name on all laws enacted by Congress (modeled after the British precedent, which added a monarch’s name and regnal year to all statutes) and “the Propriety of having a Seat with a Canopy for the President” when he visited the Senate chamber. Maclay claimed that these men sought “to play the Courtier” to Adams, who initiated the topic of a seat (“Throne” to Maclay), and that the president’s name on legislation “had been hinted from the Chair.”91 During consideration of the Senate reply to the inaugural, Maclay objected to “dignity and Splendor” as descriptors for government since he thought they connoted the “expensive Trappings of Royal Government.” Several senators responded that, on the contrary, it meant “highest perfection of Government,” and Maclay lost that point. Adams once again figured as part of the dynamic in Maclay’s eyes: “The President [Adams] rose in the Chair and repeated twice, with more joy in his face than I had ever seen him assume before, he hoped the Government would be supported with dignity and

100

C H APT ER 4

Splendor. I thought he did it by way of Triumph over me for a former defeat I gave him. But may be I was mistaken.”92 The House resolution rejecting a lofty title and its quickly completed reply to the president precipitated the fiercest confrontations between Maclay and those favoring a high-toned title. When Lee declared that “all the World civilized and savage called for titles,” Maclay replied: “Mankind now considered themselves as little bound to imitate the follies of civilized Nations, as the Brutality of Savages.” He answered Ellsworth’s reference to the “divine appointment” of kings by stating: “The impression now on the Minds of the Citizens of these States was that of horror for Kingly authority.” As the debate ran on, Adams could not remain silent and “repeatedly helped the speakers for Titles.” Adams derided the simple appellation of “President” as commonplace, the purview of fire companies and cricket clubs. He also implied the need to place the president above state governors since some state constitutions authorized a grand executive title.93 Maclay appealed to the federal Constitution and contended that bestowing a title was unconstitutional, comprising a “doubtful power” on the part of Congress. Invoking the spirit of the Constitution, he used the concept to make one of the earliest arguments pertaining to constitutional intent. Maclay “read the Clause of the Constitution against Titles of Nobility, showed that the Spirit of it was against not only granting Titles by Congress but against the permission of Foreign Potentates granting any Titles Whatever.” Both “kingly Government” and titles were “the forbidden fruit of the Constitution.” Maclay darkly predicted “a rupture with the other House,” that Senate approval of a regal title would mark the two chambers with “the Spirit of dissention.”94 The Senate dismissed Maclay’s admonitions and, instead, considered the titles of “Excellency” and “Highness with some prefatory word,” such as “Elective.” The senators favored versions of “Highness,” and “long Harrangues were made in favour of this Title.” Supporters believed its dignity “would add greatly to the weight and authority of the Government both at home and abroad.” In some contradiction to his belief that exalted titles represented detestable displays of regal splendor, Maclay answered that no title was good enough for Washington. He stated that it was “impossible to add to the respect entertained for General Washington” and besides, “it was degrading our President to place him on a par, with any Prince of any Blood in europe, nor was there one of them, that could enter the lists of true glory with him.” The debate swirled and elicited more delay in the form of another committee, one focused exclusively on a title for the president.95

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

101

When the Senate convened the next day (May 9), the new title committee promptly recommended the imposing honorific, “His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the rights of the same.” This august appellation dropped like a proverbial lead balloon in the Senate chamber. Pandemonium erupted on the Senate floor as everyone seemed to speak at once. The most avid advocates of a grand title pressed their case, while others called for caution. Several panicked senators sided with Maclay, frantically agitated against “hasty Measures,” and demanded postponement of a final vote.96 It was all too much for Adams, who “kindled” at his supposed ally, Izard, for supporting postponement, stood to dress down the senators and find “fault, with everything almost,” and even implied during his lengthy “harrange” that they act on their own without the House. Adams appeared in “despair” of getting House cooperation and had “turned his Eye, to get it done solely by the Senate.” He pressed for immediate action in favor of an exalted title, emphasizing the adverse effect of a simple honorific on the dignity of the executive: “What will the Common People of Foreign Countries, what will the Sailors and Soldiers say, George Washington President of the United States, they will despise him to all eternity.” Despite the Adams onslaught, or perhaps because of it, the senators chose postponement and another conference with the House.97 Whatever political capital Adams had held in the title debate shrank with this intemperate criticism of his colleagues. Maclay’s opinion of Adams already had slid into contempt—he was a conceited “Monkey just put into Breeches.” More significantly, Adams’s tendency to make “himself too busy” in the Senate irritated many members. Some, like Langdon and Paterson, encouraged Maclay and expressed their support privately. Others were more overt. Initial Adams ally Ralph Izard felt increasingly ill-used by reprimands on everything from substance to procedure. Earlier, Adams had disapproved of Izard’s move for the title “Excellency” since he thought it was not hightoned enough. Adams then castigated Izard for “disorderly behavior” during his diatribe. Izard retaliated and attacked Adams behind his back: “Mr. Izard after describing his Manner deportment and personal figure in the Chair, concluded with applying the Title of Rotundity to him.” Given the longevity that the disparaging title of “His Rotundity” has had for Adams, Izard’s revenge was sweet, indeed.98 In its struggle with the Senate, the House bristled at the “odium of titles” and did not welcome another joint committee on titling the president.99 House members made jests about titles and began calling the “imposing”

102

C H APT ER 4

six-foot-three-inch Maclay “Your highness of the Senate.” Pennsylvania’s similarly proportioned representative, Henry Wynkoop (six-foot-four and frequently teased about his height), was christened “his highness” of the House.100 Wynkoop, who had hoped the House’s earlier stance would prevail and “all those little Badges of Royalty called Titles will be entirely abolished,” was not pleased “to find this Busyness is not yet completed.”101 Many representatives resisted another titles committee since the House had already voted unanimously to reject any title other than that expressed in the Constitution. John Page of Virginia found exalted titles “antirepublican” and asserted that “by the Constitution the house had neither a right to suggest or propose” them. He cautioned that the “honors and distinctions” of a grandly titled “Supreme Executive” would induce “consequences derogatory to the dignity of a freeman.”102 Alexander White, who had resisted committee meetings from the start, repeated his view that “both the spirit of the constitution, and the spirit of the people disapproved of titles.”103 Eventually, despite the belief that a presidential title “militates with the Constitution,” the House voted to avoid “giving umbrage” to the Senate and moved to meet once again.104 That cooler heads prevailed in the House and engagement with the Senate continued may have been more important than some in the House realized. Participation assured that the chamber remained integral to decisionmaking and staved off unilateral Senate action. The strategy that Adams had intimated during his harangue in the Senate—ignoring the House, pulling rank, and acting alone—may have been making the rounds. Representative Peter Muhlenberg (Pennsylvania) observed that “a Majority of the Senate still harp on the old string, relative to Titles, and as They find The House no way disposd to Concur, They begin to think that They alone are invested with Authority to confer them.”105 The impact of an exalted honorific on Washington also occupied the minds of the House members, who firmly believed that their perspective mirrored his. Certain of Washington’s opposition to lordly titles, Thomas Tudor Tucker worried: “The introduction of them would bring us back to monarchy, and would justify what had been said upon the Constitution by its enemies. . . . Did General Washington wish for a title? Did he fight for this? By no means.” Tucker advised against placing Washington in an untenable position: “We shall reduce him to the necessity of evincing to the world his disapprobation of our measures, or of risking some diminution of that high reputation for disinterested patriotism which he has so justly acquired.”106 Georgia’s James Jackson agreed that the president “would refuse it [a grandiose title] if consented to, as repugnant to fundamental princi-

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

103

ples.”107 A regal appellation could not “add dignity or lustre to the person that filled the presidential Chair.” A passionate Jackson asked: “Would stiling him his Serene Highness, His Grace, or Mightiness, add one tittle to the solid properties he possessed? He thought it would not.”108 Madison then entered the fray, cooling down the hostile environment building on the House floor. He counseled cooperation with the Senate and trivialized titles as not “so pregnant with danger.”109 He reflected that the public probably would not be alarmed with a title of “excellency,” and observed that “a President of the United States cloathed with all the powers given in the constitution would not be a dangerous person to the liberties of America, if you were to load him with all the titles of Europe or Asia.”110 Madison cited the stadtholder of the Netherlands, who was weak despite a title of “High Mightiness”: “What words can imply a greater magnitude of power and strength than that of high mightiness; this title seems to border almost upon impiety; it is assuming the pre-eminence and omnipotency of the deity, yet this title and many others . . . have they conferred power?”111 With the chamber’s full attention, Madison now divulged his main oppositions to a grand executive title, the vital reasons that the House must remain engaged with and sway the Senate—his understanding of both the Constitution and Washington’s views. Madison claimed: “I am not afraid of titles because I fear the danger of any power they could confer, but I am against them because they are not very reconcilable with the nature of our government, or the genius of the people.” Madison then thrust home in a voice that spoke for Washington: “But my strongest objection is founded in principle, instead of encreasing they diminish the true dignity and importance of a republic, and would in particular, on this occasion, diminish the true dignity of the first magistrate himself.”112 Although Madison insisted that the people in their genius stood against titles, Representative George Clymer of Pennsylvania splashed a dose of reality over such pronouncements. Clymer “differed . . . from gentlemen, who supposed that the people were averse from distinctions,” and pointed to “the vast number of honorable gentlemen we have in America. As soon as a man is selected for the public ser vice, his fellow citizens with liberal hand shower down titles on him—either excellency or honorable.” He ventured, “there were more honorable esquires in the United States than all the world beside.” Clymer resembled Adams in his assessment of American foibles, yet he firmly opposed titles and “wished to check a propensity so notoriously evidenced in favour of distinctions, and hoped the example of the House might prevail to extinguish what predilection that appeared in favour of titles.”113

104

C H APT ER 4

On titles as with other issues, House members shrewdly used their open deliberations to advance the chamber’s agenda. Clymer addressed both the gallery and his colleagues with references to the public’s excessive love of distinctions and his hopes that House actions would stifle attitudes unworthy of the American Republic. Whenever Madison spoke, he had everyone’s attention since his “unique presidential access” gave added import to his opinions.114 Georgia’s Jackson also played to onlookers, especially members of the press, when he chastised them for inflammatory titles coverage. He hoped a timely resolution of the controversy would put an end to rumor and speculation, “the result being known, might prevent the publication of ridiculous and absurd contradictions and titles in the news papers, which had a tendency to bring the government into contempt.”115 As Jackson stood on the House floor and in the days that followed, titles commentary, much of it opposed to lofty distinctions, gained momentum in the press. Nudging the Senate to concur with the House, Philadelphia’s Federal Gazette declared: “The Congress have shewn their good sense and independence of monarchical and European habits, by refusing to give TITLES to their President, and Vice President. Such conduct demonstrates the progress of reason and republicanism in our country.” Titles were “calculated to please children and fools—it is to be wished, that the promiscuous use of the titles Honorable—Worshipful, and c. was banished from our legislatures and courts. They smell of the corruptions of European governments.”116 In New York, “a Citizen of the United States” thought “that all the titles known in the universe cannot add the least lustre to our beloved George Washington,” and implored Congress to avoid “any distinctions, which might lead the people to suppose that there was a design to establish an aristocracy . . . that at some future day could overthrow their liberties.”117 Gossip and speculation erupted, as well: “Mr. Adams’s vanity is thought to be much hurt by missing the title of HIS HIGHNESS. General Washington himself is thought to be opposed to titles, which he considers only as gradations leading to aristocracy.”118 New York’s chancellor Robert Livingston (in an anonymous essay signed “A. L.”) offered an unconventional yet high-toned solution. He attempted to find a middle ground in the title conundrum, where “Excellency is considered as too little for so dignified a subject” and yet “Highness . . . as it has hitherto been applied to the little princes of Europe, cannot be expressive of the rank of the first magistrate of a free people.” Livingston recommended, “George Washington, Supreme Magistrate and President of the United States.” He believed Americans would get used to the novelty of “Your Magistracy” or “Your Supremacy” since either title was “surely not harsher

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

105

than the various titles assumed by the executive powers of other nations— nor will your magistracy or your supremacy sound worse than your grace your eminence and your highness, when once the ear is familiarized to the sound.” He counted on the Washington effect, reasoning that “magistracy” and “supremacy” would become “synonimous with bravery, dignity, patriotism, virtue, wisdom, Washington . . . and dignified by their first wearer will reflect luster on his successor.”119 Livingston considered his suggestion to be a republican approach to the question of an executive title. In his draft of the article (but not in the final essay), he mused that “Supreme Magistrate and President of the United States” was preferable to “His Most Christian Majesty,” a much more regal, sacred, and unacceptable appellation for the young Republic. In addition, he presumed he spoke for many everyday Americans since he favored an elevated presidential title not only due to “the practice of all nations” and the title conventions of “states towards their own officers” but also because of “the declarations of those who by their sex or station, are placed out of the vortex of politics, and speak only from their feelings.”120 Federal booster John Fenno reprinted Livingston’s “Speculation” in the Gazette of the United States, with an introduction that praised its importance and erudition.121 James Jackson’s rebuke of the press and the House’s open forum on an executive title caught the attention of the papers and the public, but by that time the legislative phase of the controversy was drawing to a close. On a miserably wet and stormy Thursday (May 14, 1789) after another round of fruitless meetings, Richard Henry Lee reported that the House “had adhered in the Strictest Manner, to their former resolution,” and the joint committee “could not agree upon a report.” Lee proceeded to move for approval of the Senate committee’s title resolution, which emphasized the Senate’s preference for an executive title “to keep up a proper respect for our Chief Magistrate . . . [since] the appearance of the affectation of simplicity, would be injurious.” His reference to an “affectation of simplicity” was a subtle charge of reverse pretentiousness aimed at those opposed to a strong title, and Maclay recognized it for the insult it was. Lee then conceded (“done with so ill a grace!”): “In conformity to the Practice of the other House for the present they resolv’d to address the President without Title.”122 Although Lee’s motion passed the Senate, the preamble’s advocacy of exalted titles and the final committee recommendation of “His Highness the President of the United States of America, and Protector of their Liberties” came under fire. By now, senators other than Maclay had found their

106

C H APT ER 4

antimonarchical voices. Washington’s good friend Robert Morris of Pennsylvania protested the honorific since he believed the protection of rights “lay with the Whole Congress.” Maclay faulted the peremptory nature of the motion, which implied it was the “determination of the Senate to grant Titles” when no vote had taken place and “no such resolution had ever passed.” Charles Carroll fumed “that the Idea, held forth, was that the Senate were for Titles. But it was well known they were not all for Titles.” Morris and Maclay moved to strike the entire preamble and make the resolution a straightforward concession. Those in favor of the preamble attempted to block the vote on procedural grounds. Tempers flared, and Carroll hotly demanded a show of “the Yeas and Nays. And let the World Judge.” The final tally, though, favored keeping the preamble intact and the resolution passed as presented.123 Conspicuous by his silence during the final day of debate, Adams restricted his comments to a reminder that titles remained on the agenda and began his only speech almost diffidently, that “parliamentary Customs, when found convenient should be followed as good Examples.” He then observed that conferences between the houses of Parliament were rare and of “but little Use,” a possible promotion of unilateral Senate action on titles. Adams kept his counsel for the rest of the proceedings, even during the heated disputes over the preamble’s support of high-minded honorifics. His measured demeanor seemed to be a conscious change for Adams, an effort to make up for his earlier outburst. The preceding day, Maclay had noticed that a more conciliatory Adams displayed “a total change of Behaviour, or a least a Considerable one.” Perhaps Adams realized that he had alienated his colleagues and jeopardized both his stature and the push for a strong executive title; perhaps he even knew that he and grand titles had become the butt of jokes.124 The Senate eventually approved a title resolution that recognized only the Constitution’s wording, that of the executive as “PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES” with no added title, acquiescing to the House and its precedent-setting use of a simple address for the president in its reply to his inaugural appeal. Madison announced the Senate’s decision to a gratified House chamber that same day. Despite the final resolution, a majority of senators supported the preamble’s endorsement of titles, as well as their committee’s exalted title recommendation, acts rife with the separate Senate maneuvering that Adams had encouraged.125 Maclay noted that the Senate resolution included a qualifier: “The Senate . . . think it proper for the present to act in conformity with the practice of [the] House.” Adams’s final tactic of restraint may have won the nebulous “for the present,” as well as

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

107

the consolation of the preamble, both of which portended a possible revisit of the issue.126 Although the House opposed grand titles unequivocally from the beginning, Maclay viewed the final outcome as a personal triumph (“I have been a bird alone”). In his estimation, he was the only courageous senator: “I have by plowing with the Heifers of the other House completely defeated them.” Maclay especially enjoyed a successful collaboration with fellow Pennsylvanian and Speaker of the House Frederick Muhlenberg: “I will thro’ the Speaker Muhlenberg And other Friends get the Idea Suggested of Answering the Presidents Address Without Any Title. . . . And establish a precedent they will not dare to Violate.” Cannily, Maclay had perceived the pivotal role that the House reply to the inaugural address would play.127 Maclay and House members developed several arguments to support a basic antimonarchical position on titles: a high-toned executive title held doubtful constitutionality and affronted the spirit of the Constitution; exalted titles threatened republican ideals, risked the wrath of the public, and encouraged already rampant and inappropriate distinctions in society; Washington neither needed nor desired an exalted title (the “what would Washington do?” argument), and it could be abused by those who followed him in the office. Doubtful constitutionality, public sentiment, and especially the future abuse of power recurred as themes when others contemplated the prerogatives of the federal executive. James Sullivan, a prominent Massachusetts judge and future state attorney general, feared that “decetful titles” would bury “the name of Washington in a title which accident not Virtue might give to another.”128 Representative Cadwalader expressed the thoughts of many: “The great Man at the Helm [Washington] . . . has too dignified a Mind to have been affected with the most pompous appellations— but we may not be so fortunate in the Person who may come after him.” He reflected, “to say the Truth we have few Heads among us that would prove steady enough to walk the Path of common Sense, with so many Honors playing around them.”129 That Adams, Lee, and others supported a title that would strengthen the executive branch and assure an incorruptibly energetic presidency held little sway with Maclay and a growing number of senators. Advocates of a strong executive title found it difficult to articulate the dangers of an aristocracy of the Senate within the Senate chamber to the very state elites who might dominate the president through corrupt cabals. With Washington in office, the argument became even harder to make since most legislators and the public viewed him as virtuous and powerful enough to withstand any challenge or crisis. The aversion to monarchical trappings, an assumed understanding of

108

C H APT ER 4

Washington’s opposition, and the Constitution’s language forbidding titles of nobility trumped nebulous warnings about corruption at the top. With an approved title resolution, the Senate finally presented the president with its reply to his inaugural address, but title proponents remained grudging in defeat. Adams continued to believe in the necessity of distinctions. During the height of the controversy, he privately favored “Highness” or “Most Benign Highness.”130 By the end of June, he intractably considered “Highness not high enough,” and asserted that only the more exalted “Majesty” would do.131 Ralph Izard, who favored “His Excellency” for the president, grumbled: “The business respecting Title . . . is for the present suspended in the Senate, and the Address will be presented next Monday the 18th. ‘To the President of the United states.’ The words ‘George Washington’ are left out, as a contemptible affectation of ROMAN SIMPLICITY, and which in my opinion border very much upon the vulgar.” Izard deemed the simple address to be disrespect, an affected simplicity disguised as republicanism.132 In a coded letter to Jefferson, Madison intimated the depth of the president’s relief at the outcome: “Had the project succeeded . . . it would have subjected the Presidt. to a severe dilemma and given a deep wound to our infant government.” With satisfaction, he told Jefferson that the Senate “follows the example [set by the House] . . . without any other than the constitutional title.” He underscored the recalcitrance of the Senate as he moved in and out of the numerical cipher that they had used since 1785: “The proceeding on this point was in the House of Reps. spontaneous. The imitation by the Senate was extorted . . . The question became a serious one between the two houses. J. Adams espoused the cause of titles with great earnestness. His friend R. H. Lee altho elected as a republican enemy to an aristocratic constitution was a most zealous second.”133 Maclay ardently wished the “subject of Titles farewell. May I never hear Motion or debate on Thee more,” and blamed Adams and his “high Priest” Lee for the entire “idolatrous Business.” Maclay held them solely responsible: “Had it not been for our President [Adams] and Lee I am convinced the Senate would have been as averse to titles as the House of Representatives.”134 Much to Maclay’s likely dismay, his hope for the end of titles within the legislature’s business proved futile. Although Cadwalader buoyantly claimed that “the Lovers of Fringe and Embroidery have . . . been defeated, and a . . . Taste for Simplicity has prevailed over Adulation,” the second session of Congress briefly reprised the issue and revisited the uneasy relations between the two houses that titles of distinction engendered.135

DEBAT ING A “DO U BT F U L P OW E R ”

109

In the spring of 1790, titles for federal officials arose as an issue when a Senate bill detailing North Carolina’s cession of its western territory included “The Honorable” before the names of its state senators Samuel Johnston and Benjamin Hawkins. The House balked at the wording and eliminated the title in an amendment to the bill. The Senate responded with an amendment of its own that rewrote the passage without the senators’ names, thereby sidestepping any precedent or insult that could attach to using their names sans title.136 Madison recognized the incident as an echo of the earlier dispute and thought the senators remained uncured of “their partiality for their former position.” Lauding both houses, the Vermont Gazette allowed (or pressed) the Senate to be aligned with the House: “The congress of the united states appear uniform in refusing to admit titular distinction to prevail among them.”137 The skirmish in the second session of Congress involved a title of distinction for elite senators, and as such, it bore only a glancing resemblance to the controversy over an exalted executive title, which was rooted in contrasting protective prescriptions for the presidency. Maclay’s hope that he had heard the last of titles proved especially ingenuous given the people’s keen interest in the new government and the nature of the presidency. During the summer and fall of 1789, the public phase of the title controversy caught fire. As the debate over an executive title blazed in letters and various public forums, the majority of Americans approved of the congressional decision in favor of the simple address of “President,” and those most protective of individual rights and most worried about an overpowering presidency achieved a greater level of trust regarding Congress and the Constitution’s singular executive.

Ch a p ter 5

“Strange Contradictions” The People Confront Status Distinction

The debate over a presidential title caught the public’s avid attention as Americans carefully came to terms with political leadership within their new constitutional order, an accommodation that encouraged acceptance of the presidency. As newspapers, legislators, and word of mouth reported the Senate’s title resolution of May 14, 1789, the question of an executive title provided the catalyst for a necessary postratification exploration of still unanswered questions about elite leadership in America. Public reaction tackled coincident notions of national character, the influence of rank and distinction, the inherent tension between liberty and authority, and the relative power of the state and federal governments. The controversy’s outcome in favor of a modest address for the president represented more than a victory of one side over the other—the discourse regarding an executive title had a tremendously beneficial impact on the public’s comfort with the presidency. The public debate irrupted in letters, conversations, and newspaper columns throughout the summer of 1789, and commentary on a presidential title and other honorifics simmered during the ensuing years of the First Federal Congress. Sentiments reached beyond the question of an executive title for Washington and future presidents and aroused inquiry into what the use of appellations revealed about Americans. On the day the Senate yielded to the House and dropped its consideration of an exalted presiden110

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

111

tial title, the Worchester, Massachusetts, correspondent known as “The Monitor” bemoaned the “strange contradictions in the human character” that caused men to pursue status distinctions: “Is there in nature any thing so ridiculous as pride . . . for every proud man, who assumes a superiority on the score of rank, or wealth, or titles, forfeits that better interest with mankind which would have credited him for superiorities of a far nobler quality.”1 Another writer asked: “If TITLES are so excessively insignificant, how comes it . . . that a certain number are so excessively fond of them?” The conundrum of these strange contradictions fueled the fascination that titles held for the public.2 Title commentary often became a battle of opinions waged by newspaper publishers with different political biases. During the Revolution, newspapers rang with “zealous patriotism” and editors were highly political animals backed and protected from the “vengeance of the royal government” by patriot leaders. After the war, most printers maintained “relative neutrality” and “kept the traditional low profile, allowing their politiciansponsors to slug it out under pen names.” In the ratification years, however, political partisanship escalated and produced, for example, Francis Bailey’s pro-Constitution Freeman’s Journal and Eleazer Oswald’s anti-Constitution Independent Gazetteer, both of Philadelphia.3 In the spring of 1789, newspaper editors weighed in on both sides of the title debate. John Fenno’s Gazette of the United States and Benjamin Russell’s Massachusetts Centinel led the charge for a grand title to bolster strong central authority. Other newspapers throughout the country, especially the Boston Gazette, Herald of Freedom and Independent Chronicle, viewed an exalted title as a harbinger of such threats to liberty as monarchism and hereditary aristocracy. Whether the editors composed the essays themselves or the items truly came from cited “correspondents” is usually hard to tell, but the frequent coverage and profusion of voices indicated that the subject of titles garnered attention and sold papers since just about everyone had an opinion about what they meant for the Republic. Ruminations over titles often became object lessons aimed at moral improvement. Using the conceit of counseling a young woman (“To Miss America”), “a Northern Cousin” admonished America to remember its “own native sense and virtue” and relinquish self-important titles, petty gossip, and the recent trend toward excessive fashion. The Fourth of July essay cautioned, “keep thy servants modest, despise titles for thyself,” and warned repeatedly to beware of foreign influence: “Thou art young, and the world is artful. . . . Nature gave thee a good shape; why that ugly bishop

112

C H APT ER 5

[bustle] that makes thee look like a Rotterdam land-lady?”4 In New Hampshire, “a Soliloquy” exhorted people to think beyond worldly distinctions: “What is grandeur with all its glittering titles, and nobility with all its pomp and ostentation to a dying man, on the borders of the eternal world, and expecting every moment to be summoned to the bar of God?”5 At times, title usage informed the battleground of local politics and revealed simmering status-based prejudices. In Portland, Maine, a man’s use of the relatively ubiquitous “Esquire” collided with the expectation that one must deserve any title given. “Sheridan, Tertius” upbraided William Martin, an English-born merchant who opposed Massachusetts representative George Thatcher in the second federal election, for the “arrogance” of assuming the title of “Esquire,” and implied that Martin did not deserve the title since he was an “Exotic.” The insults of “Sheridan, Tertius” proved so inflammatory that rumors spread of hostility between Martin and Thomas Wait, publisher of the piece. Wait eventually assured readers that “not a threatening word passed” between them, even though he made it clear that he had no intention “of making any concessions” or retractions.6 The question of an executive title proved especially irresistible as juicy anecdotal fodder for letters and conversations. Former Massachusetts state representative Stephen Hall pressed Thatcher for news: “How go on matters of Titles with You? I hope the great american People will never disgrace themselves aping the follies of the little minded Europeans.”7 Shortly after the final Senate resolution favoring the simple “President,” Pennsylvania representative Henry Wynkoop (a firm opponent of lofty affectations) heard “a Thought respecting Titles, so new and singular” that he had to share it. A gentleman proposed the title of “Washington” to solve the quandary: “That every succeeding President should be honor’d with the Title of Washington, thus the Name and Virtues of this great Man to be perpetuated in his Official Successors as that of Caesar became A Title to the Roman Emperors and Pharoh that of the Egyptian Kings.” Wynkoop mused that although the title of “Washington” might suit posterity, he backed the recent result and hoped that “the Title of the present President is fixed so as not to be adulterated during his continuance in Office.”8 This anecdote about using Washington’s name as the American executive’s title was widespread enough that French minister Comte de Moustier relayed a version of it, complete with a wry comment of his own, back to France. Moustier reported: “Others say that soon the more lofty title will be the name of Washington which will become the title of the Presidents of the United States as the name of Caesar became that of the Emperors. Behold the incense smoke that the Americans lavish on themselves.”9 Such dinner

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

113

party on dits and moralistic diatribes only scratched the surface of public response, as details of the controversy and the Senate resolution gained traction in the press. Interestingly, no New York paper published the Senate’s complete and official title resolution at the time of the decision, probably because the full resolution was not presented to the House (and therefore not on record) and publication of the Senate Journal, which included the Senate resolve, did not begin until after the first session ended in the fall of 1789. The papers did, however, print the House proceedings for May 14, which included Madison’s brief announcement that “the Senate would, for the present, address the President under the same stile and title as the house of Representatives had given him.”10 A little more than a week later, though, an unofficial (but essentially verbatim) version of the Senate’s title resolution, complete with the preamble’s recommended “His Highness the President of the United States of America, and Protector of their Liberties,” appeared in New England.11 From the beginning, the unauthorized appearance of the purloined Senate resolution indicated the lines drawn by those for and against an exalted presidential title. When Boston’s Herald of Freedom printed the resolution, an editorial exclamation of approval—“May every son of freedom say Amen”—appeared after the final words of “without addition of title.” The following day, the Massachusetts Centinel’s report emphasized the Senate’s reluctant compliance with the “unanimous wish of the House not to give the President any title.”12 As both accounts traveled throughout the country during the following weeks, the Herald of Freedom’s “say Amen” version proved especially popular.13 The same day the Senate resolution made its first appearance in New England, Francis Childs’s New York Daily Advertiser reported another unofficial tidbit on titles: “The House of Representatives directed the title of Esquire to be stricken out of their journals.” Official House sources made no mention of the “Esquire” decision, but it probably happened since Childs frequented the House chamber faithfully and had his finger on the pulse of daily proceedings. The Senate also discussed how its secretary should “designate the Members in his entries on the journals,” but postponed a decision. Childs ran the item about “Esquire” with a short “Impromptu” that mocked legislators for using high-sounding titles among themselves: “If your Clerk you’ll not suffer to call you Esquire; Why call one another by titles much higher?”14 Proponents of, at the very least, “a respectable title” for the president often emphasized the need for societal order and played on fears of an

114

C H APT ER 5

unfettered democracy that would lead to anarchy. An elevated executive title represented a benign way to establish authority over an excessive and dangerous liberty: “It is wiser to create respect for the civil magistrate by means more safe for civil liberty, that by the fear resulting from fifty thousand janizaries.” Titles remained key to civil society; a world without them led to “total renunciation . . . not only at the existence of government, but of all society whatever—Society supposes order—order, grades and distinctions—Mankind have never yet devised any other mode of designating these distinctions than by titles.” Without status distinctions, order could be established only by force.15 A political fable, “The Fox and His Tail,” argued that titles were as essential to a lawful society as tails were to foxes. The fable likened foolish Americans who protested distinctions to a silly fox who belittled his tail when he caught it in a trap: “TITLES AND TAILS are useless things, / Baubles of nobles, queen and kings; / By none but mushroom gentry worn, / And are of Gentlemen the scorn!” Other foxes soon set him straight about the protection offered by tails (and titles): “Pray let us and our TAILS alone! / Like rudder in the wat’ry wake, / They steer us thro’ the thorny brake, / We’ll keep them, as we keep our ears, / They’ve served us well in former years.” Only the undeserving rabble and disappointed strivers opposed titles: “Titles are bad, when they forswear ’em, Who never can expect to wear ’em.”16 In a satire that warned of liberty’s affinity for anarchy, “Argos” called for the elimination of all distinctions, as “some eminent modern patriots” insisted. “Argos” proposed “knocking away all the rubbish and stuff of Titles at one stroke—that nothing may remain to dim the eternal reign of Liberty.” Sarcastically, he heralded “the pure, unadulterated spirit of freedom” where “every man should think himself equal (at least, perhaps a little better) to any man in the nation.” He implied that the loss of titles actually heralded the arrival of aristocracy, despotism, and the bane of unrestrained ambition and, further, that it was naïve to think that “there will be no Aristocrats to cloud the political sky, but sun, moon and stars will shine clear, and forever.”17 Opponents of a grand executive title viewed the purported connection between titles and societal order to be both obsolete and dangerous to individual freedom. Just as captains no longer needed “swearing . . . to govern a ship’s crew,” titles and other practices “formerly supposed to be absolutely necessary to maintain authority, and to command respect, are now found to be unnecessary.”18 Not only unnecessary, the “odius introduction of titular preeminence,” foreboded hereditary aristocracy since “the vanity of the individual, who aspires to a title, unknown to the laws and Constitution of his

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

115

country, will not be satisfied, till this splendid badge of personal superiority, is regularly transmitted to his immediate offspring.”19 Some judged titles to be unnecessary since they expected wealthy and politically connected Americans to advance their power and authority, in any case. A jaded Stephen Goodhue told his younger brother, Massachusetts representative Benjamin Goodhue, that “great men are apt to have great influence it matters not weither they have a title or not if they have but the purse and the Intrest Some times will out weigh Patriotism I think.”20 But more often, a title was considered a “splendid badge of personal superiority” that aided the already powerful and encouraged “distinctions of rank.” An exalted title for the president would exacerbate the societal tendency toward status distinction that many already observed, and lofty honorifics would spread beyond the federal executive to “advance the influence of the few, at the expence of the rest.”21 Consideration of a regal executive title, the Senate’s preference for “Highness,” and the grandiose tone in newspaper coverage of the president’s activities created public dismay over the proliferation of rank and status distinctions on the federal scene. In particular, John Fenno’s national zeal found expression in high-toned prose that offended many Americans. “Pro Republica” denounced Fenno’s use of titles and other affectations when reporting on the first family, especially after Martha Washington arrived in New York at the end of May. Although “Pro Republica” carefully absolved the “great and good” Washington and affirmed the “virtues of an amiable lady,” he was mortified “that any writer for the press should vainly think that he, in a bombastical paragraph, could enhance the honors paid to intrinsic worth, by prefixing a pompous display of titles” to those who attended various presidential functions.22 Fenno referred to Mrs. Washington as the president’s “amiable consort,” and to the disgust of “Pro Republica,” attached “Lady” before the names of the women who visited her. His Gazette of the United States persisted with the offensive (to many) superlative “Most” before the title of “Honorable” to distinguish the men attending various functions.23 Other newspapers and correspondents likewise referred to Martha Washington as “consort,” “Lady of the President,” and “Lady Washington,” and to the various women in the federal setting as “Lady.” In addition, the vice president’s wife, Abigail Adams, as the spouse of a former ambassador, had been referred to as “Excellency” for years (especially while she and John were in London), and was still addressed by the title, at least among those in diplomatic circles.24

116

C H APT ER 5

As Martha Washington passed through Philadelphia on her way to New York, an extravagant ode entitled “Our Fabian Queen” appeared, dedicated to the “Amiable Consort of our Illustrious Washington’s Passing through Philadelphia.” Depicting Washington as the American Fabian (the Roman general and dictator Quintus Fabius Maximus, who defeated Hannibal), the poem derided titles and yet mixed regal and republican sensibilities, which made it as discordant as the description of “his Highness” Washington dressed in sturdy broadcloth at the inauguration: Touch, touch the string of rapt’rous joy! My fair one’s eyes I’ve seen: With rapture I the time employ To hail our Fabian Queen. Pure, unaffected, and sedate, Surpass all pedigree; What, tho’ she fills no chair of state? She reigns still with the free. Meekness adorns her as a robe Of most transcendent die! With goodness join’d, o’er all the globe The sister virtues fly! Let Princes boast of titles great, Obtain’d by force or fraud! Mere trappings of a pageant state! And slaves their titles laud! 25 Tributes like “Fabian Queen,” which both scorned titles and crowned his wife queen, illustrate the conflicting signals Washington received from the people of the early Republic. Acutely aware of appearances and probably discomfited by the degree of adulation he encountered, Washington wished to set an appropriate and acceptable tone as federal executive that would quell, or at least not exacerbate, monarchical fears. He must have known that some elites contemplated a court-like social framework for the presidency. Frederick Steuben, the president’s old compatriot and current New Yorker, had observed months earlier: “Our politicians are now bussi in setling the Etiquette of the New Court. A Palais Royal is to be prepared, Audience and Leve Days to be fixed, the ceremonies to be determined.”26 Future Massachusetts attorney general James Sullivan remarked: “The taste . . .

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

117

amongst the high people are for a King and they are very sanguine that we cannot do without one.”27 Washington asked Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Adams (and perhaps Robert Livingston) for advice on the “line of conduct” he should pursue with Congress and the public. Although he did not mention titles, he stipulated his wish to “maintain the dignity of Office, without subjecting himself to the imputation of superciliousness.”28 Hamilton, who displayed a practical understanding of the times, advocated a “high tone,” but recognized “notions of equality” within a public that would not countenance “so high a tone as in the abstract might be desireable.” In an unsent draft, Livingston advised against socializing only with an inner circle of “confidential friends,” and encouraged some type of “free intercourse with the people” in order to “acquire a knowledge of the public sentiment.” Livingston, as well as Madison and Jay (no written replies exist for either of them), may have shared his thoughts verbally.29 Adams wrote his response to Washington’s query three days after the legislative defeat of an exalted executive title, and on the same day he delivered the Senate’s reply to the inaugural address, complete with its unembellished salutation. Still stinging from his setback, Adams wrote “with diffidence; conscious that my long Residence abroad, may have impressed me with Views of Things, incompatible with the present Temper or Feelings of our Fellow Citizens.” He favored a measure of “Splendor and Majesty” when dealing with foreign ambassadors, but overall recommended a modest approach. Adams observed that a “total Seclusion from Society” would be impossible for the president, and advised Washington to start slowly, trust his instincts, and allow time and practice to dictate his final decisions.30 Washington attempted to set a formal tone with little pomp relative to European conventions, but proved to be no match for the call of affectations since a court culture inevitably evolved around the presidency. As levees and dinners became a part of the federal scene, “the reaction to the ‘tone’ of the new government depended upon what part of the elephant one chose to see.” While the president “astonished foreign visitors because he had but a handful of footmen and servants,” the frequently breathless reports of the president’s pursuits conferred to them a resplendence that Washington had wished to avoid.31 In addition, Washington often traveled in an ornate, cream-colored carriage with six matching horses and, on occasion, “rode a white steed with leopard skin housing and saddle cloth that had a gold binding” that made an impression of magnificence.32 Although the carriage had been in the family for years (since Pennsylvania gifted it to Martha during the Revolutionary War) and Washington rode less-dashing

118

C H APT ER 5

bay horses about town, his equipage sent a signal of regal opulence when used by the president and his family.33 With or without Fenno’s ostentatious reporting, events involving the president acquired an exclusiveness that many Americans found repugnant. Although dinner parties had a scrupulously revolving invitation list that included all legislators and no invitation was required for Washington’s weekly levees or Martha’s teas, William Maclay’s verdict of “empty Ceremony” expressed the view of many Americans.34 Albany’s “a Republican” decried the “titular folly” practiced in newspapers and Congress, as well as the pomp and pretension in federal society. He urged a republican fidelity to dignified simplicity: “Let us adhere to nature, and leave to the sons and daughters of corrupted Europe, their Levees, Drawing-Rooms, Routs, Drums, and Tornados.”35 A “nascent Republican Court,” that had simmered during the Confederation years, evolved from these seeds of social and political obligation, and the Friday evening assemblies, especially, became high-toned affairs.36 Within a year, the “reception circuit” mushroomed to include soirees hosted by Abigail Adams, Lucy Knox, Sarah Jay, and Lady Elizabeth Temple (wife of the British consul), where “as many as inclination, curiosity or Fashion tempts, come out to make their Bow and Curtzy.”37 Given the press of balls, levees, and dinners where “the Ladies would not drink the ‘President’—they all drank ‘his Highness,’ ” the burgeoning court culture around Washington worsened fears already exercised by the title dispute.38 The court atmosphere heightened the protectiveness people felt toward a presidency that risked becoming tainted by a toxic pretentiousness: “Let the imperial Eagle soar on the strength of her own pinions, nor stoop to borrow the gaudy plumage of inferior birds.”39 “Pro Republica” claimed that only Washington at the helm prevented the country’s imminent embrace of monarchy, just years after expelling it. All too soon, “we shall have all the paraphernalia yet wanting to give the superb finish to the grandeur of our AMERICAN COURT! The purity of republican principle seems to be daily losing ground; and was it not that Virtue itself fills the Presidential chair, I should almost be persuaded we are on the eve of another revolution.” By 1800, news of “His Serene the President . . . accompanied by her Serenity” would fixate on minutiae instead of the real issues of the day: “Her Serenity, who was much indisposed last week by a pain in the third joint of the fourth finger of her left hand, we are happy to announce, is in a fair way of recovery.”40 Intriguingly, the “quasi-political venues” of the reception circuit were a “heterosocial space, a public space upon which both men and women had

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

119

claims.”41 But the opportunity for participation came with a cost. Abigail Adams expressed such exhaustion from the constant bustle of events that her uncle, Cotton Tufts, asked why she and Martha Washington could not establish a new “mode” and “simplify as to make them as little burdensome as possible?”42 Eleazer Russell, a federal revenue officer in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, expected court manners to “spread like wildfire thro the continent.” He identified “dress, equipage, extravagant parade, and excessive diversions” as the “bane of the country” and wished the “Seat of power” would set the opposite example of republican restraint.43 Simplification, however, lost out to extravagance. The court culture captured all within its orbit, even as it repelled some observers and participants. As New York prepared for Washington’s arrival and inauguration in the spring of 1789, James Warren (former Speaker of the Massachusetts House) had already observed that “simplicity and frugal Manners have so suddenly Changed to Pomp and Expensive parade and Republican habits and Sentiments changed to . . . Monarchical.” A year and half later, Representative George Thatcher anticipated the imminent arrival of a time when terms like “most gracious speech” would epitomize “the common Court Language. Every thing will soon be swallowed up in the Government of the United States; and already begins to converge that way.”44 Not everyone felt righteous indignation at the court culture surrounding the president. Visiting from Baltimore, the son-in-law of Maryland representative William Smith surveyed the scene with glowing approval: “The American Court . . . is as gay as any Court in Christendom, and for all I know as Virtuous—The Good old Fabius sits at the helm anxious to see the Ship of Salvation fairly under Way.”45 Highly critical of the federal scene, William Maclay believed that the profusion of social functions and obligations represented a “departure from republican plainness.”46 Nevertheless, the Comte de Moustier observed that hosting dinners was expected, and woe to the politician who neglected this duty: “One of the major complaints against Governor [George] Clinton . . . is his not having given a dinner either for the foreign Ministers or for the Members of Congress.”47 Even “Pro Republica” seemed more piqued with the tone of newspaper reports than with Washington’s activities, per se. Some tolerance and even the expectation of elegant events and the courtly ritual that thrived around Washington did not translate, however, to an approval of a high-toned executive title. In “Jet-d’Eau of Honors” (Fountain of Honors), Virginia representative John Page used poetry to vent his frustration toward those who threatened the republican character of the new government with the “odium of titles.” The poem derided kings as

120

C H APT ER 5

“honor’s reservoir, / From whence as from a fountain pour’d, / Titles on those for whom there stor’d. / Fountains of honor hence we’ve seen, / Puissant Kings have ever been.” Page criticized those who compared the president favorably with Caesar: “The tyrant’s name was handed down Annex’d to every head with crown.” Page longed for a society where “merit only gains the prize,” and reminded Americans, “Republicans of manners pure, / High titles never could endure.”48 Proponents of a strong executive title countered that the character and corruptibility of a leader, rather than his honorific, posed the real threat to republican values. History illustrated that “a simple Governour General” could grow into “as great a terror and scourge to the human race, as the Most High, Most Puissant, and Most Omnipotent Son of Mahomet with a hundred titles ever did.”49 A writer with the nom de plume of “Indifference” scoffed: “They must have very weak nerves indeed who apprehend danger from the bestowment of titles on our Federal Rulers—as at best they are but words, and cannot alter either the temper or manners of men. Nero was a tyrant without a title—TITUS, without a title, was the father of his country.”50 But in response, “Jacob Federal” completely discounted the idea that titles were more innocuous than the men who held them. He insisted that if titles were harmless, then they were unnecessary: “ ‘They must have very weak’ heads ‘indeed, who apprehend’ more honor will be due to ‘our federal rulers,’ by any addition to their proper ‘Title.’ ” He then pulled the Washington card: “Why may not George Washington continue to be a father to his country without ‘a Title’?”51 Later, “Jacob Federal” fumed at editor Isaiah Thomas: “By what authority the ‘Most Honourable’ editor of that Almanack gives titles? Is he paid or pensioned by the MONARCHY men? Is it in this way they mean to cram down the throats of the PEOPLE high sounding titles?”52 During the years of the first Congress, title foes reiterated that titles brought corruption rather than combating it. The federal system would become “the Monster with thirteen heads,” impoverishing all while seeking to “dazzle our eyes with the splendour of titles and extravagant salaries.”53 Elevated titles endangered freedom (“Goddess of Liberty! Kick down these gewgaws”) and represented “the mountains that lift up pigmy men.”54 Newspapers that continued to use “Most Honorable” for senators were attacked as “absurd to force Titles on the public . . . there is not a ‘Most’ Honorable belonging to the United States.”55 Perhaps most ominous were warnings about a regally titled presidency once Washington no longer held the office: “Should ‘Majesty’ be added, the time may come when we may have a President not quite so patriotick.”56

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

121

According to the Independent Chronicle, a lofty executive title bordered on the unconstitutional and represented “an affront to the understanding of the free and enlightened citizens of these States.”57 Cumberland Gazette publisher Thomas Wait declared: “I am in fidgets concerning titles. It is true the words Most honourable, illustrious, Terriffick, and c. and c may be harmless; but, in my opinion, when proceeding from the mouth of a Republican, they are extremely ridiculous.”58 In Rhode Island, the Society of the Cincinnati “unanimously resolved to discontinue the use of all military Titles—sincerely rejoicing in a perfect equality with all their fellow-Citizens.” News of the Cincinnati’s decision—a singular gesture from a group often maligned for its aristocratic intensions—spread quickly.59 William Grayson, who took his seat in the Senate too late to participate in the chamber’s title dispute, found titles “inapplicable to republican governments” and expressed his “dissaprobation” of them.60 The public debate over a title for the president encompassed more than a conversation over the relationship of titles to national character and republicanism. It spread to the wrangling over issues such as federal salaries, funding the federal debt, and the nature of executive power. Once the Senate passed its resolution against an elevated mode of address for the president, supporters of a strong title turned to federal salaries as another option to bolster federal authority since “pecuniary rewards” comprised an alternative to “official distinctions by honorary titles.”61 Because “ambition and avarice” were human nature, and without titles, decent wages were the best remaining way to recruit trustworthy men for federal ser vice, “the public welfare will be far more endangered by too small, than by too liberal an allowance to public officers.”62 Those who promoted federal wages reasoned that state governors drew salaries with no ill effects and noted that those officials enjoyed titles, as well: “We have never heard it complained of, that “His Excellency” of one State has not had as great a salary as “His Excellency” of another.” They viewed the “eternal harranguing . . . respecting ‘salaries, titles, representations’ ” as nothing more than groundless attempts to discredit federal leaders.63 Those who considered federal wages to be exorbitant often aligned them with lofty titles: “Will titles and large salaries promote industry and frugality, those chief corner stones of our glory and happiness?” Federal salaries would be the “ruin of liberty: For nothing is more certain, than that the pay must be raised in proportion to the imaginary consequence of the Officers.”64 “Prudence” wrote of “schemes . . . to confine the power of all to a common centre” and accused federal legislators of endangering “widows and orphans”: “Hence we hear of high titles, excessive salaries, and extravagant

122

C H APT ER 5

propositions for small and inadequate ser vices in the federal government, while our state constitutions are ridiculed and depreciated.”65 When legislators cited New York’s high cost of living, critics touted moving the seat of government away from “kingly and lordly domes and palaces” to lower-cost cities like Philadelphia or Baltimore.66 Federal salaries, like honorifics, provided evidence of the monarchical “glitter” that placed the American Republic “upon the wrong scent.”67 “A plain Pennsylvania Farmer” found high federal wages as ill-advised as “out of the way words,” such as “Most illustrious Excellency, or, Most excellent illustrious.”68 In New York, “Manlius” railed at “our high mightinesses” in Congress for supporting “extravagant wages” and “the anti-republican, the Courtly doctrine of dignity and splendor.”69 The proposal for an official position of doorkeeper to Congress (with an annual salary of $730) incited especial furor: “If we lavish 730 dollars on the door-keeper of Congress, we shall soon like packasses be trudging under a crew of lordlings.”70 Treasury head Alexander Hamilton’s proposal to fund the country’s Revolutionary War debt by paying off all security holders equally (including wealthy urban certificate speculators) also fell afoul of the title debate. While attacking the Hamilton plan as another example of monarchy invading the Republic, “Virginia” accused New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and Carolina (with their cities full of self-interested speculators who would benefit from the plan) of aristocratic ambitions: “Where is it that the aching heart is throbbing for sounding titles? And where does the sentiment of well-born originate? Where is the thirst for the distinction of birth and blood, which has made tyrants and oppressors of a few, while the multitude drag ignominious chains?” The rebuke by “Virginia” placed the blame for a retreat from republican virtues on the would-be nobility of urban and federal elites, not on honest patriots on the farms of Virginia.71 As the public debated titles in the summer of 1789, Congress began to grapple with whether to invest the president with the power of removal, and the title controversy worked against the measure. Georgia representative James Jackson declared that absolute executive power led to corruption, a revolutionary era disease that threatened the American Republic: “We already hear the sounding superlatives of his highness, most honourable and c. which ten years since would have strung a man as high as Heaven’s gallows.”72 During a debate on executive appointments, Maclay reminded the Senate that “the Present Character of our President was no Security that we should always have men equally eminent.”73 Given the Senate’s preference for a grand executive title and the effusive references to Washington, legislators like Jackson and Maclay worried that absolute executive powers of re-

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

123

moval, veto, or appointment could endanger the republican character of both the federal government and, especially, the future presidency. The transition to federal governance under the Constitution carried fundamental concerns about the relative power of states under the new order. Broad observations about the compatibility or incompatibility of titles overlapped with opinions on the relationship between the federal and state governments. The knowledge that a large Republic like the newly constituted United States represented an experiment in nationhood provided an ever-present undercurrent to the controversy over a title for the president. As we have seen, governors commonly held the title of “Excellency,” which they used throughout their lives, and other state and local officials used a myriad of lesser titles that they guarded vigorously.74 As Lieutenant Governor Oliver Wolcott told Senator Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut), “I think also that some at least of the Governors of these States do not wish to have it believed that they have any earthly Supirior—They are all of them . . . called Excellency, which is the highest Appellation known in this Country.”75 The lavish distinctions for state leaders rankled advocates of an elevated title for the president, and they seized on this inconsistency between federal and state practices. Usage of “Excellency” for state leaders was so common that some Americans thought this was stipulated by all state constitutions: “How is it, if titles are not consistent with the genius of the people of America, as is asserted by some—that in almost all the Constitutions of the several States, there are express provisions made, for titles of distinction for the Supreme and other magistrates?”76 The federal executive required an exalted honorific as much as a state governor did since “The word PRESIDENT cannot be considered as a Title, any more than that of GOVERNOR.” Since many lower state officials held the title of “Honorable,” title advocates asked how honorifics could “really [be] repugnant to the feelings and wishes of the people.”77 Those who favored a strong presidential title viewed opposition positions as nothing more than inconsistent, populist grandstanding. “An American” noted that “some of our politicians seem to aim a stroke of popularity, by declaiming against Titles, supposing the cry of fear will gain publick estimation, but while their conduct is so contradictory, in giving State titles, and opposing national, their declamation must fall to the ground.” The same writer challenged foes of strong titles for “our first national officers” to either oppose them for statesmen, as well, or agree to a compromise: “Consistency is necessary to national honour and respectability; therefore we ought either to abolish all titles of honour, or introduce a proper gradation.”

124

C H APT ER 5

“An American” suggested the title of “ ‘His Majesty THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,’ ” which would indicate the first magistrate’s “station and dignity, as representing the MAJESTY OF THE PEOPLE.” Despite the popular spin of the proposal, a preference for “Majesty” indicated that the challenge to abolish all titles for the sake of consistency was more of an empty threat than an egalitarian proposal.78 The challenge to eliminate all executive titles rather than allow the unequal situation between governors and the president was a rhetorical position intended to illustrate that fairness and consistency demanded an equivalent or higher title for the federal executive. All-or-nothing demands from those who wanted a strong presidential title (“all Titles ought to be abolished, if they are withheld from our Federal Rulers—then there would be some consistency on the subject”) often presupposed the impossibility of such an outcome. Proponents of grand federal esteem pointed out that “it would have been deemed an insult . . . if the style of ‘His Excellency,’ had been omitted” for the president of the Confederation Congress. They also assumed that state norms would not change: “The opposers of the Measure, will find it hard to reconcile to any principles of propriety, the bestowment on our State Rulers of honourary distinctions—and not on our Federal Rulers.”79 What these inconsistencies in title usage could indicate about the balance of power between state and federal governments exacerbated concern over how world powers viewed the United States. Advocates of an exalted executive title asked, “What must foreigners think of the citizens of the United States, when they observe the inconsistency of our conduct with respect to titles?”80 The country risked “the ridicule of foreigners” if state governors continued to use “Excellency” while the president held no title.81 National security required a strong title for the executive as much as state stability did: “Every nation will trifle with us, and treat us with contempt, until they see we reverence and obey our own government.”82 The title of “His Excellency” was not high enough for the American president since in other countries “from CUSTOM or COURTESY the title of EXCELLENCY is given . . . to AMBASSADORS.”83 After enumerating policies for a globally strong America at great length, “a Citizen of the United States” concluded with a short treatise that urged exalted executive titles to boost international influence. The end of this ninety-nine-page opus recommended “for the President, The High and Most Honorable, the President, and c. And for the Vice-President, The High and Honorable, the Vice-President, and c.” The suggestion of a form of “Highness” firmly placed federal executives above governors on the scale of honorifics. The author granted that “Highness might in some ears sound

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

125

unpleasant, and too much like royalty” but maintained that titles were “perfectly consistent with the Constitution, and the spirit and principles of a free government.”84 The accusations of inconsistency carried weight, and many opponents of a grand title for the president initially floundered as they retaliated since they were guilty as charged—they favored the preservation of state titles as a defense against federal incursion. “Caution” defended state usage with vague references to custom and a wave of the wand of dispensation: “The adoption of titles in the State Constitution, is owing entirely to various accidental causes, which it is not needful at present to consider.” “Caution” buried the charge of inconsistency by deflecting attention back on “the zealous friends to the new system of government who anxiously contend for titles,” and who constituted “an order of Patricians.”85 Others used the Revolution to warn against noble titles and ignore the state usage problem: “Was it to decorate the brow of lordly insolence, or to sooth the pride of bloated ambition, that our property has been lavished, and our blood shed in torrents?”86 Other opponents of federal distinction turned to the Constitution to avoid dealing with the complication of titled state elites. Although the Boston Gazette had criticized the Constitution during ratification, the paper now extolled its simple reference to a president: If genuine consistency be our object—If the Americans still feel themselves the free citizens of free and independent States—If the motives which inspired us in the progress of the Revolution have not spent their force—If the holy fire of liberty, the pure spirit of Patriotism, respect to the example of their ancestors, and a sincere love of their posterity, have been their shining characteristics, let them continue to give to him who so virtuously represents the people, THAT TITLE alone which the People have by their Representatives bestowed and ratified.87 According to the Boston Gazette, both monarchy and civil war loomed if America walked the path of regal titles: “Let us spurn the base and servile attempt to erect a power in these free and United States which the people abhor, and which will terminate in bloodshed and confusion.” The danger came from federal, not state, titles.88 “A Federalist” discounted the “flimsy writings of a certain few,” who favored high federal titles and presumed to “know more than the late Federal Convention.” With a disconcerting logic that appeared to expect Washington to be president forever, he asked: “Which Congress appears most respectable,

126

C H APT ER 5

that under the old confederation, with the title of Excellency annexed to the President, or the present, where the President has power it is true, but no title save that of the saviour of his country.” He mocked the notion of a grand title with “the Most Illustrious, Powerful, Majestic, Magnificent and Sublime, the President of the United States—and as mankind are so apt to be caught by mere sound, it would not be amiss to add Terrific, to keep the Spaniards in awe, and drive the English forever from Novascotia and Canada.”89 To counter the claim that America would suffer on the world stage without a president whose title balanced state “Excellencies,” opponents disparaged the idea without addressing specifics: “The strictures of foreigners” do not “apply to the citizens of these free and independent states.”90 Rising Glory testaments flourished and reinforced the belief that America need have no concerns about its stature. Providence shined on America “protected by a wise, a just and equal constitution of government.”91 And, “the patriots of America, must view with the utmost pleasure, the rising greatness of his country.”92 Foes of lordly titles attested with confidence about the country’s destiny: “If we are sober, prudent, and oeconomical, we shall have peace at home, and consideration abroad, unaided by titles.”93 As long as they disregarded the inconsistency of their support for state honorifics, those opposed to an exalted title for the president made little headway against their adversaries. Title foes needed to address the usage of state titles in order to illustrate how federal titles could really pose a threat. As advocates of a high executive title noted: “If on no other principles than those of consistency alone, Titles for our Federal Rulers, can be advocated with success . . . not a single reason has been given, why if a Governour . . . has the title of His Excellency—THE PRESIDENT of the United States, should not have something more dignified—especially as the propriety of the former has not been questioned.” Besides, “every body know how easy a State Title is to be obtained,” and even with titled state officials “a proper respect for civil rulers has been barely excited.”94 The standoff over the discrepancy between state and federal title usage, which could have amounted to nothing as both sides dug in, instead underwent a metamorphosis that transformed it into a larger consideration of liberty, order, social rank, and the character of a republic, a shift that revealed a growing acceptance of federal leadership. By August, the opponents of a grand executive title broke the stalemate in which they found themselves by finally addressing their inconsistent state bias. They concluded that an America without state or federal distinction represented the desired republican ideal. When this happened, the idea of no lofty titles for governors or the president (which had been advanced more as a dire outcome

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

127

than a real option by those in favor of distinctions) emerged as the preferred choice, and those in favor of a grandiose title lost their discursive edge. A Boston newspaper debate between “an American” and “a Real Republican,” respectively an advocate and opponent of an elevated executive title, illustrated the evolving views of those who had fought a grand title for the president while defending honorifics for governors. Title champion, “an American,” saw nothing but trite phrases and suspicious motives in opposition writings: “Instead of shewing cause, why State rulers should have titles, and NATIONAL rulers should not have them, they fly off to the hacknied subterfuge of vague declamation and harrangue.” “An American” claimed that efforts to vanquish federal titles actually masked darker attempts to “degrade the General Government” since state titles “have never been opposed.”95 In answer, “a Real Republican” rejected state titles instead of defending them and asserted that the question of why state but not national executives should have titles was “founded on erroneous premises, as it goes upon the supposition, that State rulers ought to have Titles.” Seeming to address allies and enemies alike, “a Real Republican” acknowledged the titling of governors, but spurned it as “a remnant of our old British government which ought to have been cast from us, at the instant of our Revolution, for as we were then establishing a new Constitution, perfectly Republican, it would have been more uniform and consistent with our avowed principles . . . to forbid the introduction of any Titles whatever.”96 “A Real Republican” exhorted Americans to remember their heritage: “A nation like an individual, ought to KNOW THEMSELVES . . . the manners of European nations do not apply in our case . . . The parade of titles, and glare of Courts, are altogether opposed to our interest and prosperity.” The welfare of the Republic lay along a different path, one that stood against grand titles for both state and federal leaders. Then, “a Real Republican” took the argument to its logical end and demanded that the Massachusetts constitution be changed: “The article which gives the Title of ‘HIS EXCELLENCY’ to the Governour will be expunged.” This call for a revised state constitution both attacked the widespread convention of high-minded titles for governors and implicitly endorsed the greater republican credentials of the federal Constitution, and by association, the modestly titled presidency.97 Confronted with the extreme scenario of no titles that they often used as an empty threat, advocates of a regal presidential title had to eat their words. The novelty of the proposal to amend the state constitution to get rid of the governor’s title startled “an American,” who responded to “a Real Republican” by sputtering: “But has it [the high title for the governor] ever been

128

C H APT ER 5

complained of ? . . . bring a single instance . . . a single proposition . . . made for expunging it.”98 Since the stipulation of titles for governor and lieutenant governor remain in the Massachusetts Constitution today, the skepticism of “an American” was well placed, but it could not offset an egalitarian idea whose time had come.99 By January 1790, opinion in Boston’s Independent Chronicle insisted that the Massachusetts state legislature “shew their disapprobation of TITLES, by enacting a Law, annihilating all honourary distinctions in the several Departments of the State Government.” Not only would the official act “fully convince the World of the uniform conduct of this State” with regard to executive titles but it also deprived “the advocates for Titles, of one principal argument in favour of introducing them in the federal Government.”100 Considering such a change in state law, local lawyer Thomas Dwight joked about the difficulty of separating elite state officials from their honorifics to Representative Theodore Sedgwick: “You will, I presume join with me, should this take place, in pitying the numerous herd of animals in this Commonwealth whose importance depends solely on sounds.”101 At the same time as the exchange between “an American” and “a Real Republican,” “Poplicola” also concluded that titles of distinction for state leaders needed to go. Making no effort to disguise concerns about the presidency, “Poplicola” portrayed the Constitution’s vision of the office as a “strong Executive, which in other countries has been the work of violence,” and likened a grand title to a regal “sceptre.” Nonetheless, “Poplicola” admitted the absurdity of denying a title to the president while granting appellations to state leaders and traced the title of “Excellency” to the practice of royal governors, which unfortunately was “retained . . . under constitutions of our own framing.”102 “Poplicola” lauded the simple address for the president recently approved by Congress as “most decisively republican” and predicted that it would “be revered, and probably adopted in the states. . . . thus may our errors and extravagancies in due season be corrected.” Acknowledging the people’s undeniable and troubling “passion for such lofty titles,” “Poplicola” called on all representatives (“the guardians of their liberties”) to resist titles for the good of all. The depiction of the federal precedent as the “revered” choice echoed the conclusion of “a Real Republican” and expressed a growing acceptance of the Constitution and the office of the chief executive.103 To French observer Moustier, clashing outlooks on titles threatened a “schism” that could contribute to the growth of parties. In the discord over “distinguished marks,” he discerned “different principles in the United

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

129

States, which, in the long run, should produce different effects and give birth to different parties.” The penchant for titles among an already influential and exclusive group of Americans (ironically, these title advocates comprised a version of the powerful few from whom Adams sought to protect the presidency) could lead to greater class differentiation: “When wealth is conjoined to these titles hereditary nobility, with which several families are already infatuated, will come next. Then the class of the Well born will be known.”104 In a popular essay with long-lasting appeal, “a Subscriber” deemed disagreement and debate essential to good government. Expressing a perspective different from Moustier, “a Subscriber” concluded that “the parties and political feuds in several States, should be considered as so many blessings to the citizens; as yet they have done but nothing good; the New Constitution proceeded in a great measure from them; they are blasts to keep alive the political fire; by them knowledge is disseminated through the States.” For “a Subscriber,” the title controversy’s outcome demonstrated that the country remained on an egalitarian path: “Titles have been disgraced, and in this Land of Liberty, are declared to be truly ridiculous to all who wear them.” “A Subscriber” militated for a broad rejection of status distinctions and an America where “merit and not favor” found reward, a position that proved to have wide support given the essay’s abiding popularity (well into the nineteenth century).105 With their endorsement of the congressional mandate favoring a modest executive title, “Poplicola,” “a Real Republican,” and “a Subscriber” reflected both a growing acceptance of federal governance and the public’s broadening egalitarian perspective. By summer’s end, the impulse to preserve distinctions for state leaders as a guard against federal intimidation waned. Indeed, the states felt increasing pressure to follow federal example and eliminate high-toned titles for their leaders. Although advocates of grand federal titles occasionally resurrected the consistency argument since states persisted to title their governors as “Excellency,” foes of lofty distinction no longer clung to the state practice and, instead, increasingly denounced exalted titles at both levels of government.106 As the first session of Congress drew to a close with a flourish of legislative activity in September, summer’s barrage of title commentary lessened, though passions still ran high. “Amicus” settled a quarrel over titles by advising his feuding friends to wait and see: “Time will decide whether they are useful at all, and in what degree. . . . It is probable that any which may be chosen will be a jest to one half the world, and a scare-crow to the other.”107 One correspondent declared an end to the subject: “You may banish all your fears upon the score of titles, and be assured they have too few advocates in

130

C H APT ER 5

Congress to find an establishment.” But the prediction proved to be wishful thinking.108 The publication of the Senate Journal’s official version of the title resolution in the fall of 1789—complete with the committee’s recommended use of “His Highness the President of the United States of America, and Protector of Their Liberties”—precipitated a return to the debate.109 “Clericus” maintained that “His Highness” was not “respectful enough to be given to the CHIEF MAGISTRATE of this extensive nation,” but was willing to accept it since “the Senate of the United States have this title on their Journals, and . . . to follow it would be to follow an exalted example.” However, “Jo Bunker” castigated the Senate as “Monarchy Men,” who believed that “unless a government can have so much dignity, pomp and splendor, as to keep the people out of sight, it can never be supported.”110 The revolution in France and the dismantling of that country’s absolute monarchy stimulated renewed pulses of title commentary, as well. Six weeks after the July 14 assault on the Bastille in 1789, the French-language newspaper Courier de Boston praised the American Constitution, which “never had Titles in view” and belittled titles as appealing only to the young and gullible, who think “every thing is pretty that is new.”111 Yet, a poem on the pitfalls of the “Extinction of Titles” mocked the French as naïve for believing that equality of rank led to good leadership: “Hail deep humility of spirit, That forms a common stock of merit; Assigns the same exalted station, To him who saves, or sinks, a nation.”112 The dissolution of titles in France forced Americans to face their attachment to personal distinctions and benefited those who opposed rank and pretention. “Philo-W” beheld the “changes and chances that happen in this whirly-gig world” and observed that while France was “destroying and throwing away all hereditary titles,” American universities were “manufacturing and multiplying them more than ever!” Just as offensive, “the great officers of the United States . . . wear our homespun titles, as well as our homespun broadcloths.”113 In Philadelphia, Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser (formerly, The Pennsylvania Packet) criticized the federal court culture and “fondness for the style of address and manners of a Regal Government.” The piece expressed disgust with the use of “Excellency, Most Honourable, Honourable, and Esquire” that flourished among officials and detested that “the Levees of men in office are as familiarly mentioned in some of the capitals of the United States, as they are in Dublin or Westminster.”114 Most Americans deplored the mob violence, but applauded as the French divested themselves of hereditary aristocracy. Many took pride in the congressional decision of a simple title for the president and felt kinship with

“ST RANGE CO N T R A D I C T I O N S ”

131

the French rejection of titled nobility: “The people of the United States and of France have led the way in abolishing all absurd insignia from amongst their rulers.”115 Some Americans denounced the chaos and anarchy of “political madmen and enthusiasts,” who defaced churches, abolished order (including titles), and disallowed the “rights of the nation’s creditors.”116 However, those opposed to regal titles found gratification in “the news of the levelling system lately received from France” and crowed about its deflating effect on the cause of advocates of rank and distinction: “A set of gentlemen . . . who a year or two ago were stark mad for investing certain federal officers with titles, seem quite chop fallen.”117 The Gallic wind of equality provided a fresh reminder of the significance of the struggle between democracy and aristocracy. A political obituary of titles and monarchy published in the spring of 1791 became arguably the most popular novelty piece to be inspired by the changes in France: “Died lately in France —The Divine Right of Kings . . . Unequal Rights among men . . . Titles, which are now considered to be as ridiculous appendages to names as rings are in the ears and noses of Indians—The supremacy of the Pope . . . The Alliance of Church and State.” This celebratory death notice of the French monarchy and aristocracy circulated in the American press for months.118 The legislative determination to look to the Constitution and follow its lead toward a simple, unadorned title offered tangible reassurance to an American public with egalitarian ideals. The decision gave the people confidence in both the republican character of the document and in the trustworthiness of their present representatives: “Thank ye heaven, as I do sincerely, for that wisdom of the honorable the legislature of the union, which has dictated . . . no sereneties, highnesses, nor bashaws.”119 Although the plain address of “President of the United States” did not dissolve all monarchal concerns about the presidency and the federal government, the rejection of a regal presidential title reaffirmed the country’s revolutionary path toward a democratic Republic. The public debate over an executive title forced those most suspicious about the central government, and most conservative in their protection of state distinctions, toward a more populist view that disdained titles at all levels of governance. This embrace of a broader egalitarian outlook took the federal action as its model.

Ch a p ter 6

A “Dangerous Vice” Leaders under Scrutiny

The Constitution and the governance it envisioned remained unproven in the spring of 1789. This was especially true with regard to the protection of the people’s liberties. The public sought an ideal of executive authority that would remain anchored in popular sovereignty and yet steer the country to an eminence that matched its boundless potential. The examples of conduct set by federal leaders not surprisingly influenced the consideration of political leadership within the public debate over executive titles. George Washington and John Adams, in particular, provided the public with contrapuntal models that informed the discussion of desirable traits for a national leader. The slings and arrows of critical opinion aimed with especially devastating precision at John Adams. The strictures against him ranged far beyond Ralph Izard’s now infamous “His Rotundity” insult, which may have been familiar only to congressional elites and their confidants.1 More damning, Adams became branded as the “dangerous Vice,” a biting epithet derived from a long poem of the same name that offered a punning critique of both his monarchist vice of promoting a regal executive title and the vice presidential office he held. The poem, entitled “The Dangerous Vice---------,” provocatively linked the evils of monarchy with the titles champion a heartbeat away from the presidency.2

132

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

133

Although Adams dreaded the real possibility of an aristocratic Senate cabal that would manipulate and corrupt the president, his efforts to increase the energy of the executive through what critics viewed as “nauseous titles” appeared monarchical to the people.3 His reputation suffered immediate and long-term damage, and he became the butt of jokes among legislators. Influential Virginia judge and future William and Mary professor St. George Tucker found the title debate so ludicrous that he skewered Adams in an unpublished play. Newspaper opinion toward Adams varied. But he received such scathing press coverage that, at times, his defenders protested the brutal level of the attacks more than the criticism itself.4 Washington presented the public with a much different and more complex dynamic. Throughout the title controversy, he continued to embody one of the great dichotomies of the early Republic—although accolades and addresses with regal and divine undertones of Washington’s third body of sovereignty remained the norm, the public saw him as an iconic and powerful republican who disdained titles. Most Americans maintained confidence in both his “moderation” and his opposition to “insulting peagentry.” As a result, despite the court culture enveloping him (and the presidency), Washington buffered the early presidency from attack as a monarchical institution capable of corruption or the abuse of power.5 When the people considered Washington’s example within the debate over an executive title, a picture of an ideal president emerged—one that had Washington’s traits but that rejected the kingly enthusiasm associated with him. The modest title of “President” reflected both Washington’s widely admired appearance of modesty and the country’s preference for a lack of pageantry, a preference that he countenanced. Washington’s support of the people’s endorsement of a simple presidential title that would tamp down monarchical concerns illustrated the basic tenets of democratic leadership— the interdependence that exists between the president and the people and, given the power of the office, the acknowledgment of the public’s desire for moderation from its first officer. The outcome of the title controversy represented this emerging concept of an ideal national executive and, significantly, established the fundamental cornerstones of American democratic leadership. Federal politicians other than Washington (congressional “high-fliers”) bore the brunt of the public’s censure of aristocratic posturing such as lofty titles and, like Adams, provided counterpoints to the president’s example.6 “Rusticus” pointed to the chronic penchant for “a style imitative of the parade, ostentation, and etiquette of foreign courts . . . with reserve and distance in

134

C H APT ER 6

our federal officers.” Exempting Washington, he faulted members of both houses of Congress: “New and unusual titles are contended for in one branch of the legislature, and . . . but faintly opposed in the other.”7 Parodies of an aristocratic Senate (“May it please your most agreeable HIGHNESSES”) derided its unbridled self-interest behind closed doors, which conveniently covered “with a veil of darkness, our high mightinesses, as the people of the east do their lamas.”8 Although the Senate’s capitulation to the House eased the concerns of egalitarian-minded Americans, the chamber’s advocacy of “Serene Highness” and “the little pageantry of Titles” fed predictions of the impending downfall of liberty under the new Constitution and the rise of privileged corruption.9 Writing as “a Real Republican,” Massachusetts attorney general James Sullivan likened senators to a dangerous party bent on “compelling the people to a proper submission” by creating a regal title for the president, lifelong terms for themselves, and “introducing a mixed monarchy.”10 Dark visions of an omnipotent upper house forecast a future where “an Attorney now possesses the first office of the United States, and he is controlled by the Senate.”11 The closed doors of the Senate invited accusations that senators “being more under cover . . . were not so republican in their sentiments,” and exacerbated the belief that many in the chamber were no “friends of liberty.”12 Virginia lawyer Joseph Jones mentioned to Representative James Madison that “we have heard much” of the title dispute and was “inclined to think had the public ear listened to their proceedings . . . their propositions would have been more equal and their pretensions less lofty.” Jones expressed his pleasure with the House and the “plain manly stile of address ‘G. W. president and c.’ the present name wants no titles to grace it.” Yet, he was troubled about leaders less honorable than Washington: “Should the office be filled by an unworthy person the stile will not dignify the man Or cast a beam of light around his head.”13 Sullivan and Jones, like Adams, worried about Senate corruption but, unlike him, they did not think a grandly titled president was the answer. Even though the avowed “sterling good sense” of the House’s unanimous stand against titles boosted its republican credit and public confidence in Congress, the lower chamber remained prone to condemnation as an elite institution.14 Complaints persisted as representatives in the House regularly addressed each other as “Honourable” in their open deliberations, a practice that provided ammunition for title supporters. More than a year after the title dispute and well into Congress’s second session, an observer of public affairs brooded over the “vanity and folly . . . conspicuous in too

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

135

many of our public proceedings.” He despaired of the behavior of the “public men . . . which (to use an old phrase) is not calculated for our meridian. . . . [for] whom nothing but titles will serve.” At the top of the list of culpable federal leaders was Vice President John Adams.15 In late May 1789, as the dust settled on the legislative resolution of the title controversy, Representative Fisher Ames mused about Adams’s reputation and his future effectiveness: “The business of titles sleeps. It is a very foolish thing to risk much to secure; and I wish Mr. Adams had been less undisguised.” As for titles, he remarked: “I do not fear tyranny from giving, nor contempt from refusing, a title.” Ames observed of Adams: “He has been long absent, and at first he had not so clear an idea of the temper of the people as others who had not half his knowledge in other matters.” He recognized what Adams had learned only through hard defeat—that an exalted executive title would be unpopular and raise alarm among a majority of the public.16 The day after the Senate’s capitulation to the House on titles, Pennsylvania representative Thomas Fitzsimons reproached both Adams and the Senate. With more heat than Ames, Fitzsimons reported that the question of an executive title had “very much Agitated the Senate. . . . the V. P. has given recent proofs of his Superlative Vanity.” Citing the pivotal reply to the president’s inaugural address, Fitzsimons disclosed that the House “wisely and decidedly agreed to the Address prefixed to our first Communication with the president.” He then blasted “their high Mightinesses” for not following the House example: “Many days has been Spent in debateing and devising some Stile of Rank—it is not yet abandoned, but I hope will—before it makes its author more Ridiculous.”17 Just as troubling for Adams as the disapproval of his support of a regal title (rumors flew of his hope that “in the scramble he might get a slice for himself ”), philosophical rifts developed with some of his oldest friends and most respected patriot comrades.18 In particular, his rapport with longstanding, “worthy Friend” Philadelphia physician Benjamin Rush, and with revolutionary cohort Connecticut representative Roger Sherman strained under their differing views of the new federal system. During the spring and summer of 1789, Adams discussed titles and executive power with several like-minded friends such as William Tudor and Jabez Bowen, but his correspondence with Rush and Sherman illustrated two prominent advocates of the Constitution valiantly attempting and ultimately failing to understand a friend who clung to his belief that the document only weakly safeguarded the president from the power of state elites and other corrupt influences.19

136

C H APT ER 6

In June and July, Rush probed Adams about monarchy, titles, and republicanism. Prior to that time, Rush’s correspondence with Adams had focused on recommendations for office seekers and on the advantages of Philadelphia as the permanent seat of government.20 Though he still recommended his city’s moral superiority over New York (“a city contaminated” with royalist British influences), Rush now challenged Adams on his advocacy of titles: “I am as much a republican as I was in 1775 . . . I consider hereditary monarchy and aristocracy as rebellion against nature . . . I abhor titles, and every thing that belongs to the peagantry of government.” He was uneasy with the people’s “idolatrous and exclusive attachment” to Washington and what it could mean for the presidency: “Why should we accelerate the progress of our Government towards monarchy? Every part of the conduct of the Americans tends to it. We will have but one deliverer—One great—or One good man in our Country.” In spite of their “present contrariety of sentiment,” Rush assured Adams of his continuing friendship.21 Adams reassured Rush, replying that “I also, am as much a Republican as I was in 1775,” but he commended the stability of monarchal governance (“the Hope of our Posterity”) and insisted that “there never can be, any Government without Titles and Pageantry.” Adams dismissed those “bawling about Republicanism which they understand not” and thought a limited monarchy was necessary to bring order to an America that appeared to be “in great danger of fatal Divisions . . . I Scarcely know of two Persons, who think, Speak and Act alike, in matters of Government.” Bruised by his defeat, Adams realized the unpopularity of his beliefs and had an inkling of the damage he had done to his reputation: “I very well know that Vexation and Chagrine, must be my Portion, every moment I shall continue in public Life.”22 Adams’s defense of monarchy and skepticism of republicanism shocked Rush. Although Rush was “so long accustomed to regard all your opinions upon government with reverence,” he could not “suspend my belief in republican Systems of political happiness” and urged “a fair tryal” of republican governance.23 Adams, however, anticipated the machinations of corrupt elites: “Tryals innumerable have been made,” with the lesson that “an unbalanced Republick” produced factions and “a greater number of able and ambitious Men.”24 He maintained that there existed “no Person and no society, to whom Forms and Titles are indifferent. . . . We shall find national Titles essential to national Government.” Adams continued in language that called to mind a presidency under siege: “It is not to gratify Individuals that public Titles are annexed to offices. It is to make offices and Laws respected;

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

137

and not so much by the virtuous Part of the Community, as by the Profligate the criminal and abandened.”25 An exasperated Rush found Adams unreasonable. Rush reiterated his aversion to the “epithets” of exalted titles: “I have no objection to men being accosted by the titles which they derive from their offices. Mr. President, Mr. Vice-President, Senator, Councilor, Judge, or even Constable may all be used with propriety, but why should we prefix nobel, honorable, or elective to them? . . . The use of titles begets pride in rulers and baseness among the common people.” Rush saw “no end to the difficulties, disputes, and absurdities” of rank and distinction. He found vaunted titles “no more necessary to give dignity or energy to a government than swearing is to govern a ship’s crew, or spirituous liquors to gather in the fruits of the earth.”26 Adams recognized the tension building between them (“I have persecuted you too much with my Letters”), but continued to defend honors and “the Influence they have, on the Thoughts of Men.” A strong executive title was imperative: “This is then a more Serious affair than it appears at the first glance.” The president needed a title as exalted as “Majesty” because “the State Governments will ever be upper most, in America in the Minds of our own People, till you give a Superiour Title to your first national Magistrate.” The president’s title must balance the “Wealth, Power and Population of this Country” and reflect “the constitutional Authority and Dignity of his office.” Without this balance of authority (by a title mightier than “President”), “you may depend on being the Contempt, the Scorn and the Derision of all Europe.”27 A year later, Rush doubted Adams’s fidelity to revolutionary ideals and thought that Adams had irrevocably “fixed his character for ever in the United States” as high-toned (“ ‘titles! poor human Nature!’ ”).28 Rush reminded Adams of his “principles and conduct in the years 1775 and 1776,” and mentioned a recent conversation with Thomas Jefferson where they “deplored your attachment to monarchy and both agreed that you had changed your principles since the year 1776.”29 Adams assured Rush: “I am a mortal and irreconcilable enemy to monarchy. I am no friend to hereditary limited monarchy in America.” That Adams neglected to deny sympathy for a nonhereditary limited monarchy did little to allay the unease Rush felt about his friend’s political philosophy.30 During this period, Adams renewed his acquaintance with Roger Sherman, a Connecticut representative in the House and an old friend (and fellow committee workhorse) from the days of the Continental Congress. The vice president responded to two articles that Sherman, as “a Citizen of New Haven,” wrote on the Constitution and proposed amendments.31 Unlike

138

C H APT ER 6

Sherman, Adams endorsed strengthening the executive by amending the Constitution to allow the president absolute veto power. Adams advanced his familiar warning that the Senate’s “Aristocratical Power” would dominate both the presidency and the House and “swallow up the other two.” He reasoned to his old friend that “the Legislative Power in our Constitution, is greater than the Executive, it will therefore encroach—because both Aristocratical and democratical Passions are insatiable.”32 Without veto power, Adams foresaw a lack of “Courage” in the executive and the rise of “factious Schemes . . . to unduly influence the Executive, and of corrupt bargains between the senate and Executive, to serve each others private Views.”33 Sherman saw no reason to shore up the powers of the president and believed that “the qualified negative given to the executive by our constitution is better than an absolute negative.”34 Further, Sherman took exception to the idea of an aristocracy afflicting the Constitution: “I see no principles in our Constitution that have any tendency to Aristocracy, which if I understand the term, is, A government by Nobles independent of the people.” Sherman viewed the Senate positively, almost benevolently, and found it to be “the most important branch in the government, for aiding and Supporting the Executive, Securing the rights of the individual States, the governments of the united States, and the liberties of the people.” Contrary to Adams, he worried that an executive with absolute veto powers would be “deceived by flatterers and pretenders to Patriotism, who would have no motive but their own emolument.” Sherman rebuffed Adams’s exertions and advocated no immediate changes to the Constitution: “I have Said enough upon these Speculative points, which nothing but experience can reduce to a certainty.” Like Rush, he wanted to give the new federal government a fair trial.35 The title controversy linked Adams and monarchism in the public mind, just as it did in the minds of Rush and Sherman. Philadelphia’s Independent Gazetteer warned of the “kingly designs of Mr. A—s, V— P——t of the union, who on every occasion evidences his predilection for royalty.” Especially deplorable were Adams’s “strenuous and persevering endeavours to lead Congress into the adoption of high sounding and splendid titles” and his reference to Washington’s inaugural as “your most gracious speech” (“the style used in England, in addressing the King’s most sovereign Majesty”). The only conclusion could be that “every genuine republican must view with the highest indignation the daring attempts of Mr. A—s to introduce the principles and usages of monarchy in the New Congress.”36 The French minister, the Comte de Moustier, confirmed the emerging perception of Adams as a monarchist. The limited monarchical rule that

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

139

Adams deemed necessary to protect America’s future remained a monarchy nonetheless: “He is a declared partisan of a Monarchy limited by a legislative body and a judiciary but he wants the executive power to be energetic and adorned with great pomp.”37 A year later, Moustier’s replacement, Louis Guillaume Otto, reported that the “popularity of Mr. Adams . . . is falling lower and lower.” Otto attributed the dislike of the vice president to his attempts at strengthening the executive: “[The] monarchical ideas that he is always spreading . . . excite the indignation of some and the contempt of others.”38 Rush and Sherman remained courteous in their disagreements with Adams, but other critics found respect difficult. Thomas Jefferson declared the Senate’s title proposal “superlatively ridiculous,” and recalled Benjamin Franklin’s assessment of Adams as “always an honest man, often a great one, but sometimes absolutely mad.”39 William Maclay observed legislators “lampooning” Adams and watched from the House gallery as members passed “Embrio Witlings round the room.”40 Representatives John Page (Virginia) and Thomas Tudor Tucker (South Carolina) exchanged this riddle: Quis? by T.T.T.M.D.

In Gravity clad, He has nought in his Head. But Visions of Nobles and Kings, With Commons below, Who respectfully bow, And worship the Dignified Things The Answer Impromptu by P.

I’ll tell in a Trice— ’Tis Old Daddy Vice Who carries of Pride an Ass-load; Who turns up his Nose Wherever he goes With Vanity swell’d like a Toad41 The Tucker-Page witticism directed at “Old Daddy Vice” circulated throughout Virginia (at the very least), with George Mason among its fans. Mason condemned “the Pomp and parade” on the federal scene and vented his anger especially toward Adams. Mason wanted to keep the government “out of the power of those Damnd Monarchical fellows with the Vice president, and the Woman [Abigail Adams] to ruin the nation.” His main solace

140

C H APT ER 6

was Washington, “by G-d . . . if the President was not an uncommon Man—we should soon have the Devil to pay.” Mason’s feelings made it back to Washington, who could not have been happy to hear of his friend’s distress, especially since Mason remained wary of the Constitution and the new government.42 Maclay contributed a caustic commentary of his own, which contrasted the pretensions of Congress and his vice presidential nemesis with Washington’s virtue and authenticity. Under the guise of “an Old Soldier, and an Irishman,” Maclay depicted a Revolutionary War soldier who looked forward to following President Washington as he had once followed his general: “These fine folks would spoil our General if they could. He never was a greater man, than when he rode among us with his dusty boots.” However, instead of orders from his trusted commander, the campaigner encountered unfair laws passed “by a string of names . . . and among the rest, one Vice” and saw “luxury and riot rise on our hard earnings, while misery is our lot.” How could Adams, who had not served in the army (“this Vice never was in camp”), now presume to act for Washington, the people’s true champion: “What! . . . Where was the man to take his place when our frost-bitten toes looked thro’ our ragged shoes?”43 Like Mason and Maclay’s old soldier, many others reckoned the unproven vice president to be an unworthy proxy for a genuine leader like Washington. Adams was criticized as one of the false patriots “whose ambition and vanity, rather than real virtue, made them conspicuous in the revolution.” The vice president advocated “the political necessity of titles, and an artificial subordination . . . by the most pedantic sophistry of argument.”44 John Trumbull (Connecticut State attorney and a Connecticut Wit) reassured Adams that the criticism was to be expected from individualistic “true Republicans,” who were prone to question anyone in a position of authority. However, the vice president’s support of pretentious titles had severely jeopardized or even revoked his revolutionary credentials.45 Indignant over the title campaign, prominent Virginia jurist St. George Tucker condemned Adams and the Senate for “the Baseness, Servility and Apostacy of our Countrymen from those principles for which thousands of their sons and Brothers shed their dearest Blood.” In the summer of 1789, he confided to his older brother Thomas Tudor Tucker (House member and coauthor of the “Quis?” riddle): “I have actually begun a political farce, the object of which is to ridicule the frivolity of the proceedings of the Senate, and to expose in its proper Colours the Character of their President, whom I consider as the high priest of Monarchy.” With his farcical play,

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

141

Tucker intended to use “the force of ridicule upon minds callous to other modes of reasoning.”46 Entitled “Up and Ride; or, The Borough of Brooklyn,” St. George Tucker’s play lampooned Adams and other federal officials, but held Washington blameless. Tucker depicted Adams as the scheming and unprincipled Jonathan Goosequill, recorder of Brooklyn, who longed to replace his boss, the retiring mayor, George Wheatsheaf (George Washington). Goosequill’s allies included Mathew Starch ( John Jay), who would become recorder if Goosequill became mayor, and the self-important Alderman Leashore (Richard Henry Lee). Like Washington during the title debate, Wheatsheaf functioned as an offstage foil since the mayor, with laudatory republican disinterest, had “gone to his farm at flatt bush to avoid the Election.”47 The play began with Goosequill gathering support for his candidacy and flaunting his importance while he prepared a farewell speech and grand procession for Wheatsheaf. Tucker mocked Adams and the title dispute, as Goosequill defended high-flown titles against the outcome of the “late Contest in the City”: “The first should have had any title he would have accepted; the second should have been slated his most superfluous sublimity. And all the rest Excellencys.” Goosequill as villain of the piece promoted himself as a well-traveled “man of the world,” who knew “what great folks are.” He pledged to protect the dignity of the office since “without Dignity all office dwindles into contempt. Men in high Stations should feel, should assert, should maintain their own Consequence. Without splendor, without Rank, their is no honor, no distinction.”48 Tucker directed additional disgust toward fellow Virginian Richard Henry Lee. He employed an analogy based on the curing of beer and wine to lob a slur at Lee, when Goosequill puffed: “Titles, Sir, like Isinglass [a clarifying agent] precipitate the Lees [dregs] to the Bottom, but leave the spirit bright and powerful at top.” At another point, Goosequill advised closing the door of a meeting with the aldermen and referred to Wheatsheaf as “our worshipful chief Magistrate.” A simpering Leashore seconded “the sentiments which the worshipful recorder has express’d.”49 Lee and the Senate drew ire from Tucker for their closed-door cronyism, as well as their complicity with Adams on titles. Leashore exclaimed: “Nothing can be more improper than for the rabble to be apprised of the subject we are discussing. . . . Nothing could lessen us so much in the eyes of the world, as to permit every curious fellow to see whether we are doing anything or nothing.” Another especially despicable alderman (unnamed) agreed: “Aye, aye. Shut the Door. Keep the mob at a distance. I cant abide the

142

C H APT ER 6

greasy rogues—fellows whose Faces shine like old Moses’s, and who smell of musk as strong as an alligator.” Leashore then shut the door: “Let our proceedings, Like other mysteries men adore, Be hid to be rever’d the more.”50 The climax of “Up and Ride” depicted common councilmen (the House) forcing open the door of the meeting and saving Brooklyn from vainglorious titles. As Goosequill read his proposed valedictory to Wheatsheaf (“To the most sublime, most honourable and most worshipful”), the common councilmen rushed in. Objecting to what they heard with a cry of “Title!!!” they disparaged distinctions: “I’m for no Titles. I hate superfluous Gifts!” Goosequill and the aldermen acquiesced, but, like the Senate, allowed for future action: “For the present Gentlemen we are content to dismiss the subject . . . no more of it at this time . . . some better opportunity may offer.”51 St. George Tucker emphasized the link between Adams and the sins of monarchism and ambition. When Goosequill extolled titles that “like goldleaf can hide the crassist materials and give luster to the clumsiest image,” an alderman commented to the audience: “Then I’m sure that some of those we meet with in the City stand in great need of them.” An aside from Goosequill underscored the danger that Adams represented: “I would not choose to push the matter too far for the present, but when the Election is over I shall not be so easily put off.”52 Like Goosequill, Adams represented self-serving leadership and remained a royalist menace as long as he held office. In September, Thomas Tudor Tucker told his brother that he would enjoy seeing a copy of “Up and Ride,” but he warned him of too obviously skewering highly placed politicians. Thomas advised that it may not be “good Policy to make a direct Attack on Individuals unless a baseness of Intention can be made very evident.” He reported that one of St. George’s targets, Richard Henry Lee, “has been said to be a Man of republican Principles. . . . If it be true in any degree it wou’d be imprudent to drive him over to the aristocratical Party, already too powerful.” He worried that the play’s criticism could ricochet onto St. George since “ridicule, which has been said to be the Test of Truth, is very apt, if not powerfully supported, to recoil instead of fixing on the intended Object.” He counseled circumspection: “were we to make every Man our Enemy who is not wholly in Sentiment with us, we shou’d have very little Support left.” Given Thomas’s coauthorship of the riddle attacking the vice president, his concern may not have extended to skewering Adams.53 Thomas Tudor Tucker’s reference to Richard Henry Lee as a powerful politician to cultivate rather than disdain, illustrated why Lee, who authored

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

143

the move for a titles committee and abetted Adams in the Senate, escaped the worst of the backlash against those who favored a regal executive title. Although Virginians like St. George Tucker and James Madison held him in contempt, Lee quickly moved on from titles to his main concern and a preeminent issue for both Tuckers and other defenders of individual rights— amendments to the Constitution. Lee vigorously promoted “the broadest possible range of amendments” and pressed for prompt, first-session action on “those great principles of Civil liberty which the wisdom of Ages has found to be necessary barriers against the encroachments of power in the hands of frail Men!”54 In the wake of the title controversy, Lee retreated from other efforts to strengthen the executive, such as an exclusive power of removal, absolute veto, and other proposals that raised his concern over “the federal government’s heavy handedness.”55 Given Lee’s ratification era arguments for a privy council to increase the executive’s independence, his doubts over the president’s ability to fend off dangerous cabals probably receded as Congress approved official department heads at the end of the first session. By the summer of 1789, the political priorities of Lee and critics of a lofty executive title aligned. Further, his priorities contrasted markedly with Adams, who, continuing to fear for the president’s frailty, promoted an exclusive presidential veto and lobbied Sherman on the subject. In addition, Adams provided a large target for foes of pretentious distinctions and drew aspersions that otherwise could have landed elsewhere.56 In his advice to St. George about “Up and Ride,” Thomas Tudor Tucker briefly alluded to another satire, a poem, beginning to make the rounds. Although he did not mention it by name, Tucker certainly referenced the Adams critique, entitled “The Dangerous Vice---------: A Fragment.” Edward Church, a failed Boston merchant and the brother of Revolutionary War traitor Dr. Benjamin Church, composed the long satirical poem that created a flurry of bad press for Adams.57 “Dangerous Vice” first appeared in Boston in August and was advertised for sale in several of that city’s papers. Its treatment of Adams made it a hot commodity, but it was difficult initially to find in New York since, as Abigail Adams reported, local printers “refused to be concerned with it.” Nonetheless, within two weeks of its release, copies circulated in New York.58 “Dangerous Vice” warned against monarchy and encroaching aristocratic pretensions spreading from the government’s core. Federal officials, except for Washington, whom the poem praised, no longer hewed to republican principles: “All are not like old CINCINNATUS now, To take up their old trades, or dirty plough.”

144

C H APT ER 6

Church exhorted American leaders: Ape not the fashions of the foreign Great, Nor make your betters at your levees wait, Resign your awkward pomp, parade and pride, And lay that useless etiquette aside; Th’ unthinking laugh, but all the thinking hate Such vile, abortive mimicry of state.59 The “Fragment,” as it also was called, lambasted “mushroom lordlings” sprung from their “native dunghills” as the scourge of society. Church heralded brave soldiers of the Revolution, now abandoned by their officers (especially those wearing the “pendent Eagle,” the badge of members of the Society of the Cincinnati) and left bereft by their country: “Scars are the badges which poor soldiers wear, Who for their thankless country bravely dare.”60 “Dangerous Vice” excoriated extravagant titles and viewed their advocacy as the antithesis of what Americans expected of their leaders. Legislators who abetted distinctions betrayed those who had voted them into office (“YE WOU’D BE TITLED! whom, in evil hour —The rash, unthinking people cloth’d with pow’r”), and Adams deserved the most damning denunciations. The country’s leaders must resist evil’s hunger for power and its unholy messenger, Adams. YE faithful Guardians of your Country’s weal, Whose honest breasts still glow with patriot zeal! The lawless lust of POW’R in embryo quell, The Germe of mischief, and first Spawn of Hell; Resist the VICE—— and that contagious pride To that o’erweening VICE—— so near ally’d.61 According to Church, not only was Adams the “Spawn of Hell” for tempting the country with royalist titles but he also craved a throne for himself, “already dubb’d a King, in royal dreams.”62 Church’s undisguised insinuations and his use of the exact number of dashes in the title, “Dangerous Vice---------,” which were needed to spell out the missing word of “president,” created a barrage of public comment about Adams. One of his defenders reported “indignation and contempt” for the work: “As for the Vice-President, his character rests upon the broad basis of virtue and abilities, and is not to be shaken by the attacks of envy, malice and disappointment.”63 Some found the attack “too severe” or too direct: “When every finger points out the object, the discreet will pause.” However, even

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

145

those who sympathized with Adams commended the poem’s criticism of pomp, hoped federal leaders realized “that their extravagance and parade do not pass unnoticed by their fellow citizens,” and wished that “there was not some justice in the reflections on the Vice*********.”64 “Dangerous Vice” resonated like a finely struck chord with its populist message condemning aristocracy and those who fostered it. “A Real Mechanic” recounted the reaction of a large gathering of tradesmen, all “friends of equal liberty,” where the “celebrated Fragment” held sway. These everyday citizens knew they were exempt from the poem’s wrath and “laughed at the idea of our worthy Tradesmen of any sort being reflected on; or in any shape insulted by that spirited perfor mance.” Rather, the satire exposed the social climbing and self-interested notables, epitomized by “the person who has entered the temple of fame, and profit; and who wishes to shut the door behind him . . . who talks of distinct orders, distinct ranks, nobles and commons.”65 Middling Americans believed that Church spoke for them, and they rued “these days, where the ‘well born’ are placed in posts that make them a ‘Dangerous Vice’ to the community—Alas! for our Country.”66 Church’s poem dared to say what many believed needed to be said: “Every body but the objects referred to and their dependants, admire the spirit of the performance, and acknowledge it to be well-timed. Imaginary diadems have been tarnished—and bloated pride restrained by its powerful influences.”67 In New York, a song extolled his “peerless strains” and “genius bright,” and praised Church as the new Homer.68 As Representative Tucker predicted could happen to those who incautiously impugned public figures, Church’s character as the author of “Dangerous Vice” came under attack. Although some argued the unimportance of Church’s motivations if “the sentiments are just,” defenders of Adams blasted it as a “mere shadow of satire” and “harmless barkings of a toothless hound.”69 They depicted Church as an unsuccessful office seeker who blamed Adams. “Togatus” dismissed the poem as the “foul offspring of Malice and Disappointment” over Adams’s role in a lost appointment.70 Similarly, another questioned “how far an author prompted by spleen or disappointment is justifiable in making such an attack.”71 Abigail Adams fumed over Church’s assault on her husband. She complained to her sister Mary Cranch about the “Libel (for such it is) calld the Dangerous vice” and identified Church as a “dissapointed [office] seeker.” In trying to fathom his motives, Abigail remembered a misunderstanding at a levee and a “letter to Mr. A. when we were abroad soliciting the place of

146

C H APT ER 6

counsel to Lisbon,” which Adams did not answer.72 Her uncle Cotton Tufts consoled her, denouncing it as a “scurrilous Poem . . . of a malicious and disappointed Seeker—it appears to me to be a Stab upon the President through the Side of the Vice President.”73 Like Abigail Adams, Fisher Ames ascribed vindictive intentions to Church and recalled an occurrence at a levee that may have set him against the vice president. As Ames told it, Church approached Adams while the latter was in conversation with Washington. Church bowed in greeting, but Adams, “mindful of the etiquette of Europe, which forbids attention to any other while in conversation with the Sovereign, he did not return the bow.” Ames reflected on the unintended insult: “As Church, and most Americans, know nothing of this rule of Etiquette, perhaps he [Adams] had better have bowed in return.” He mentioned that the vice president had tried but failed to find Church later to explain: Adams “did not see him again—Behold the poetical fruit.”74 When “Dangerous Vice” appeared, Adams attempted to take the high ground, but the attack cut deep. To Reverend Jeremy Belknap, he insisted that he had not been “assaulted by malice,” and for all he knew, Church was driven by patriotism. But then he continued: “If it was not patriotism it was mere caprice or the lust of fame. Let him have it.”75 By late summer, Adams seemed exhausted by “submissions to insult and disgrace.” He complained bitterly that his exertions on the behalf of executive authority and the president’s power of removal had made him “the Scape Goat on whom all the sins of Unpopularity are to be laid. . . . [and] has raised from Hell an host of political and poetical Devils.”76 Adams felt the burden of the constant and unfavorable comparisons to Washington during the title controversy, perhaps never more so than when the president became ill that summer. Relieved when “our beloved Chief ” had recovered, and on the defensive against accusations of presidential aspirations (“I am not an ambitious man”), Adams stated: “I know very well that I am not possessed of the confidence and affection of my fellow Citizens, to the degree that he is.”77 Of his role as the deciding vote in Senate impasses, he complained that “every unpopular point is invariably left to me to determine so that I must be the scape goat,” and reflected, “I . . . shall soon be pronounced Hostis Republicam generis [An enemy to the Republic].” Adams insisted that his spirit would “not give up its right or relinquish its place whatever the world or even my friends . . . may think of me,” but his was an embattled state of unrelenting criticism.78 Adams never forgot the insult and label of “Dangerous Vice.” Years later, shortly after he delivered his second annual message to Congress as presi-

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

147

dent of the United States, he told Abigail: “Rejoice with me. That I have this Day finished my Ceremonies with the two Houses. Their answers to the Speech have been civil and I have given them civil Replies.” His vice president, Thomas Jefferson, had yet to make an appearance for the new session of Congress. After such a delighted opening to his wife, Adams remarked: “The dangerous Vice is not arrived. If I was ever absent so long when I was the dangerous vice they did not Spare to confuse [disconcert or shame] me. But nothing is now Said.” His use of the epithet from the era of the title controversy suggested both a foreboding of distrust that he intuited toward Jefferson and the bitterness he still carried from the aspersion of the “Dangerous Vice.”79 Like the contrast between Washington and Adams presented by Maclay’s old soldier and in Tucker’s “Up and Ride,” Church’s handling of Washington morphed “Dangerous Vice” into a much different animal from the one that preyed on Adams. Church portrayed Washington as a sterling example of American leadership: “The compliment to THE PRESIDENT is beautiful, and . . . bespeak the man of sense, and the feeling republican.”80 Church hailed “GREAT WASHINGTON! Columbia’s prop and pride, Her Friend, her Father, guardian God and Guide.” The president’s leadership and virtue remained an ideal, unattainable in anyone other than Washington: If Kings like thee cou’d love, like thee cou’d feel, And know no wish but for their country’s weal, Or ’mongst the human race, if we cou’d find, Like thee to govern, and to bless mankind; Then might AMERICANS unblushing own Such worth wou’d almost sanctify a Throne.81 Church served up Adams in counterpoint to Washington: “Tainted with foreign vices, and his own, / Already plotting dark, insidious schemes . . . Already dubbing with his magick wand / A Swarm of NOBLE Locusts in the land.”82 Abigail Adams chafed at Church’s juxtaposition of the republican Washington and the royalist Adams. She found Church’s praise for the country’s first executive hypocritical and sacrilegious: “He attacks one [Adams] and hold the other [Washington] impiously up and stiles him a Saviour and God. How inconsistent, railing at Titles and giving those which belong to the Deity.” Indelicately, Church had not spared Abigail, criticizing her and other women on the federal scene as elites who never walked and only rode

148

C H APT ER 6

in chariots: “John!—bid the coachman drive up to the door, / Let’s hand the Ladies in—and say no more. / These are the blessings of our halcyon days, / Let ev’ry HAPPY FAV’RITE toast their praise.” Abigail wrote that Church was “a Brute to attack me who never in thought word or deed offended him.” His attack especially bothered her because Washington remained exempt from the charge of lofty pretension: “The Vice Pressident ten times to one goes to Senate in a one Horse chaise, and Levee’s we have had none. The Pressident only, has his powderd Lackies waiting at the door.”83 During the title controversy, Washington’s complicated duality of kingly prominence and republican persona that so frustrated Abigail Adams often neutralized the political perspective of people on both sides of the debate. Among those who preferred more central control and those who opposed it, Washington often constituted a common denominator of faith. Revolutionary officer Anthony Wayne, who rose from colonel to major general in the ser vice of his country, preferred a more energetic president with “sole appointment of officers.” Still, he found a strong executive title much less important than the person holding the office. Wayne observed: “You may call the present President the Emperor of the West or by any other high sounding title you please. It cannot add to his transcendent merit, worth, and dignity of mind.”84 At the other end of the spectrum, New Hampshire lawyer John Wendell, who opposed grand titles and advocated for amendments to keep monarchy in check under the Constitution, displayed a similar confidence in Washington: “Could We be sure of a Race or Races of Washingtons to the End of Time, I should not care how soon it [monarchy] was established.”85 However, Washington’s prestige occasionally bolstered the position of proponents of an exalted executive title. Reverend James Freeman, Unitarian minister of King’s Chapel in Boston and no friend to lofty titles, sparred with his wife more than once over the issue. He reported that “the people in this town, and especially the women, think that no style can be too elevated for General Washington. This is in particular the opinion of my wife, with whom I have had several quarrels upon the subject.” Freeman found the enthusiasm for titles “truly ridiculous,” and bristled: “Some propose that he should be called His Highness, other His Supremacy, and other His Sublimity; and I have seen an honest federalist this morning who conceives that no title is more suitable than that of the Most High.” The minister in Freeman must have despaired of the misplaced sanctity contained within the people’s zeal.86 More often, those opposed to an elevated mode of address for the president claimed Washington’s unassailable republican virtue (“he despises the

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

149

froth and folly of empty parade”) as a reason for simplicity. The president “wishes no BADGE, which the Constitution has not expressly allowed, to distinguish him from his fellow citizens in general—Who is there then in the federal government, that is so solicitous [desirous] to be thus exalted?— Let him be named.”87 Title foes insisted that Washington “stands unmoved in the vortex of folly and dissipation which the city of New-York presents— despising and rejecting titles and pecuniary emoluments with the truly republican spirit with which he has always been distinguished.”88 The Boston Gazette even claimed Martha Washington as the source for insight into the president’s view against lofty titles. In the item, a gentleman from Boston addressed the “first Citizen of these States, by some ridiculous title, which he foolishly intended as a compliment in consequence of Mrs. Washington.” However, “this amiable Woman expressed the strongest disapprobation of such an address,” and “declared that it was equally disagreeable to the President.” According to the Gazette, both the president and his wife stood united against titles—George a shining example of modesty, and Martha a correspondingly firm paragon of republican womanhood.89 Throughout the dispute, only those opposed to exalted titles claimed to be on the side of Washington’s views. They absolved Washington of any interest in an elevated honorific—“Did General Washington wish for a title? Did he fight for this? By no means”—and believed a high-toned honorific would place him in the “delicate and disagreeable” position of either having to defy Congress or submit to a title that could damage his reputation for republican virtue.90 Those who favored a strong executive title, like Reverend Freeman’s wife, might claim that Washington’s stature deserved or required it, but no individual or newspaper opinion asserted that the president favored a lofty address. William Maclay believed that those who wished to strengthen the executive tried to use the “Veneration entertained for General Washington” to push their agenda. However, even John Adams never claimed that the president favored a grand title, and with good reason since Washington expressly urged him to abandon the effort.91 The one time Washington overtly mentioned the controversy, he stressed his opposition to what he considered to be a disastrous push for an exalted executive title. In July 1789, Virginia’s unhappiness with the title campaign and the president’s health spurred Washington’s confidant, David Stuart (a doctor, family member, and former Fairfax County delegate to the Virginia legislature), to apprise the president of the unrest in the state: “Nothing could equal the ferment and disquietude, occasioned by the proposition respecting titles.” Washington had encouraged their correspondence before he left, and Stuart understood that he would be Washington’s eyes and ears

150

C H APT ER 6

in Virginia, imparting “information of the Public opinion respecting the operations of the government.”92 After briefly inquiring about Washington’s recent illness, Stuart immediately described the rancor over a high-toned executive title. Stuart deemed dismay with federal ostentation “more captivating to the generality than matters of more importance.” Adams and Lee had become “not only unpopular to an extreme, but highly odious.” Those who remained suspicious of the new government felt vindicated, and Patrick Henry’s warning that the Constitution “squinted towards monarchy, is in every mouth, and has established him . . . a true Prophet.” Stuart assured Washington that his conduct as president met with “high approbation, and particularly your dispensing with ceremony occasionally, and walking the streets.” Although Washington often traveled about New York in his ornate carriage, approval of his gesture of walking about town contrasted with reports that “Adams is never seen but in his carryage and six.” The overuse of chariots was so inflammatory that St. George Tucker titled his play “Up and Ride” to underscore his indignation toward pretentions and the vice president’s penchant for parade.93 In his reply to Stuart, Washington stressed his opposition to an elevated title for the president and displayed flashes of irritation, even anger, toward those who advanced one. That Adams and others presumed to initiate the controversy before Washington arrived in New York, and then ignored his protests against the idea after he knew of it, rankled the general, who was used to having his orders obeyed: “The truth is—the question was moved before I arrived, without my privity or knowledge—and urged after I was apprised of it, contrary to my opinion.” Washington realized that the title initiative raised a red flag to those still upset over the Constitution’s emphasis on central control. He told Stuart: “I foresaw and predicted the reception it has met with, and the use that would be made of it by the adversaries of the government.” He believed in the Constitution’s vision of a stronger America and opposed an elevated executive title as an unnecessary threat to its success.94 Washington worried that the public would align him, mistakenly, with supporters of regal honorifics and disliked being placed in such a precarious situation so early in his administration. The title issue “has given me much uneasiness, lest it should be supposed by some (unacquainted with facts) that the object they had in view was not displeasing to me.” Indicating unhappiness with Adams, he confided: “It is to be lamented that he, and some others, have stirred a question which has given rise to so much animadversion.” Washington endorsed the title resolution’s outcome, his relief obvious: “Happily, the matter is now done with, I hope never to be revived.”95

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

151

Former Virginia governor Edmund Randolph, on the threshold of his appointment as the country’s first attorney general, reported a rumor that Washington feuded with Adams and threatened to resign over titles. Randolph disclosed to Madison: “The president is supposed to have written to Mr. Adams, while titles were in debate, that if any were given, he would resign. Whether it be true or not, it is a popular report.” Referring to Virginia’s recalcitrant state assembly, Randolph speculated that not even this evidence of Washington’s displeasure with Adams “could draw forth from the assembly an address of congratulation” to the new president. For Virginians opposed to federal rule, the reported estrangement between Washington and Adams offered a modicum of reassurance, but not enough to lower their guard against a singular federal executive.96 Although Washington dreaded an association with the tainted Adams, the tendency to draw contrasts between the two men maintained his republican credentials during the title controversy. Yet, a half century later in antebellum America, journalist Rufus Griswold wrote that Washington favored “the style of ‘High Mightiness,’ used by the Stadtholder of Holland.” Griswold based his assertion on an anecdote from the family of Representatives Peter and Frederick Muhlenberg that he recounted as fact. While at dinner, Washington purportedly asked Peter Muhlenberg about the title of “High Mightiness,” which Washington appeared to favor. To the president’s apparent disapproval, Muhlenberg answered with a jest about the imposingly tall representative Henry Wynkoop (sitting nearby) being a good candidate for the title. A half century after Griswold, historian Max Farrand stated with no evidence that “the title which Washington himself was said to have preferred . . . was ‘His High Mightiness, the President of the United states and Protector of their Liberties.’ ” It is likely that Farrand based his comment on the same hearsay used by Griswold.97 To this day, assertions that Washington may have countenanced the title of “High Mightiness,” based on this thin-to-nonexistent evidence, continue to surface.98 The Muhlenberg story was debunked years ago, and the title controversy sources (which abound with anecdotes and innuendo) contain no indication that Washington approved of “High Mightiness” or any exalted title. The public at the time certainly believed he opposed them. Washington’s unequivocally stated displeasure and frustration with the title campaign in his letter to Stuart, and the fact that gossip-collecting senator William Maclay (a confederate of Muhlenberg and central figure in the title debate) reported hearing nothing of Washington’s sentiments strongly discredit the Muhlenberg claim. Maclay mused over the president’s views, but admitted, “I have no Clue,” and was certain he “would have heard of it.” Also, Maclay’s

152

C H APT ER 6

commentary as “an Old Soldier” depicted Washington as above reproach.99 As for Peter Muhlenberg, a later unhappiness with Washington at losing out to Arthur St. Clair for commander of the army may have contributed to a lasting disappointment that could have sparked the invention of the story.100 Additional clues also refute the “Mightiness” report. For example, the “High Mightiness” story, as related by Griswold, sounds suspiciously similar to the teasing comments about “His Highness” directed toward the tall Maclay and Wynkoop as “Highness” of the Senate and House, respectively. Maclay attributed the jests to Muhlenberg, with no mention of Washington or “Mightiness.” Years later and among family, Muhlenberg may have embellished his original joke. In addition, Henry Wynkoop himself discredited the claim that the president favored a grand executive title. During the height of the legislative debate, he alluded to personal knowledge of Washington’s disapproval of royal titles: “This fondness for European feathers, in some gentlemen of the Senate, I have some reason to believe is not at all agreeable to our beloved President.”101 The timing implied by the Muhlenberg anecdote also argues against its validity. Washington probably began hosting dinners on May 29, two days after Martha arrived in New York and after he had received feedback on his inquiry about presidential etiquette. If Muhlenberg uttered some version of the “Highness/Mightiness” joke at a dinner with the president, it happened after the Senate passed the May 14 resolution, which concluded the congressional debate on titles. When the dinners began at the end of the month, Washington was acutely aware of the burgeoning public outcry, which he had predicted would happen. It would have been out of character for the habitually circumspect Washington to mention a high-toned title outright, especially after the decision favoring the simple “President of the United States.” If Muhlenberg made the jest in Washington’s hearing (prompted or not by the president), it is more likely that Washington displayed disapproval of the title and the jest, as opposed to the jest alone, as the story suggested.102 Finally and importantly, James Madison, Washington’s closest collaborator (on the republican-themed inaugural, the simply addressed House reply, and elsewhere) and public voice belittled “mightiness” in an open debate on the House floor and alluded to the president’s disapprobation. Madison referred to “Mightiness” as an empty title that conferred no power to the stadtholders in the Netherlands and pointedly mentioned that an elevated title would “diminish the true dignity of the first magistrate.”103 Madison’s efforts on Washington’s behalf, as well as Maclay’s record of the various “Highness” jests making the rounds in Congress and his admission that he had heard nothing to indicate that Washington favored a title, occurred during the

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

153

height of the Senate dispute over executive titles when they were in the midst of the fight.104 Wynkoop’s disclosure about Washington’s dislike of “European feathers” also occurred during the thick of legislative debates and while he was the object of coincident teasing.105 With the ring of authenticity that is missing from the Muhlenberg story, these contemporary comments by Madison, Maclay, and Wynkoop corroborate that Washington either said nothing about grand executive titles or disapproved of them. Significantly, Washington comprehended the importance of the will of the people under the Constitution. Washington told his confidant Stuart that he greatly valued his observations and assured his trusted correspondent that he sought to hear the “public opinion of both men and measures; and of none more than myself—not so much of what may be thought the commendable parts, if any, of my conduct, as of those wch are conceived to be blemishes.” He wished to know about local attitudes toward his leadership and correct any misunderstandings: “At a distance from the theatre of action, truth is not always related without embellishments, and sometimes is entirely perverted from misconception.” He understood that calming public fears about the presidency—by mirroring public opinion when he agreed with it or considering a modification of his positions or behavior if the people demanded it—was an integral part of presidential leadership within the new Republic. He pledged to reevaluate his stances when the public deemed his actions misguided, “if they are really such, the knowledge of them . . . will go more than half way towards effecting a reform.”106 Washington’s continued popularity stemmed from his ability to apprehend and reflect the pulse of popular opinion. Before assuming the presidency, he deflected William Barton’s attempts to introduce heraldry and a coat of arms into the office of the executive, based on his experience with protests against the possible hereditary nobility promoted by the Society of the Cincinnati and his sensitivity to concerns about monarchy raised during ratification.107 Long before he became president, Washington had learned to respect the era’s egalitarian ideals, despite the continued use of titles in society. As he assumed the Republic’s highest office, Washington recognized that “the eyes of America—perhaps of the world—are turned to this Government; and many are watching the movements of all those who are concerned in its Administration.” Perhaps no one was watched more closely than Washington.108 Like the tumult in France, the president’s tours of New England in the fall of 1789 and the southern states in the spring of 1791 prompted renewed surges in title commentary. Much like his inaugural procession to New

154

C H APT ER 6

York, Washington’s presidential tours resembled royal progresses with grand receptions and accolades. During his New England tour in the autumn of 1789, references to Washington remained in flux, as newspapers entitled him from the simple “President,” to “Illustrious,” to “his Highness the President general.”109 In New England, odes and songs to Washington, the “Illustrious Visitant! design’d, By heaven’s invincible decree,” proliferated amid the military reviews, illuminations, and fireworks.110 A year and a half later, the southern states welcomed Washington with equally lavish ceremonies and balls (“the largest number of ladies ever collected”). Charleston’s City Gazette attested to a “gratitude and joy” that enveloped Washington and afforded “the highest gratification to every true patriot to have observed the man whom we most venerate—venerated by all.”111 However, the juxtaposition of grand titles and veneration for Washington alarmed many Americans who sensed the dangerous presence of Washington’s third body of sovereignty. The difference was that now Washington was the president. During the New England tour, a “zealous patriot” protested the “pompous eulogiums” heaped on the president and used the signature, “An Admirer but not Worshipper of great Men.”112 Samuel Curwen, a Salem merchant and former Loyalist, admonished fellow merchant William Vans for his disparaging references to the “King, say President Washington.” Curwen thought the tone denoted “discontent with the present form of government, and too strongly smells of the licent’s [licentious] spirit of y’r late Anarchy [Shays’s Rebellion].” But Vans represented a growing segment of the public who recognized the need to separate the monarchal enthusiasms of Washington’s third body from the presidency.113 Washington’s progress through New England aroused dueling impromptus on titles. A widely published verse opposing lofty titles declared Washington’s name greater than any title: Fame stretch’d her wings, and with her trumpet blew, Great WASHINGTON is near:—What praise his due! What Titles shall HE have? She paus’d and said, Not one; HIS NAME alone strikes every Title dead.114 The impromptu echoed the sentiments of a recently held Boston town meeting, where the “several hundred” present unanimously voted that the

A “ DA N G E R O U S VI CE ”

155

city should salute Washington simply as “PRESIDENT of the United States.” The report of the meeting attested to the “joy of all ranks of people” on the president’s imminent visit and declared: “If any title is proper, none would apply so well as that of his being “The Delight of Human Kind.”115 The last line of the impromptu (“HIS NAME alone strikes every Title dead”), however, sent a challenge to advocates for a grand executive title. The response verse ridiculed those who feared titles as precursors to aristocracy and used the metaphor of a “lap-dog dragon” to mock the purported danger of titles: “His name alone, strikes ev’ry Title dead” If that is true, what further need be said? And yet, consistent! patriotic! wise! Inferior Titles, GRATITUDE supplies. A Monster would, sans doute, from order spring, And LAP-DOG DRAGON, prove a dreadful thing.116 To the degree that reprint rate indicated the level of endorsement for opinions expressed, the message of Washington’s name striking “every Title dead” overwhelmed the “lap-dog dragon” sentiment by a ratio of approximately three to one.117 The renewal of title opinion coupled with the outsize enthusiasm of Washington’s northern tour produced a sobering effect on the public, who wondered whether any man other than the current president could retain his republican honor under such a deluge of ardor. The president’s fall trip brought the realization home to New York bookseller Ebenezer Hazard, who had served as postmaster general during the Confederation. Hazard expressed unease about the likely fallibility of the men who would follow him: “What an Uproar the President made to the Eastward! Should his successor expect the same attentions, how could they be refused? It would not do to tell him his merit was not equal to his Predecessor’s.”118 The people required trust and forbearance in their first officer, but the grandiose ceremony that was safe with Washington could prove disastrous with anyone else in the office. Boston’s “Americanus” warned: “We are all fond of heaping honours upon, and vesting our President with powers,” but the next president could be “the worst of men.” He ruminated on an America without Washington at the helm: “Who will succeed him God only knows. We ought, therefore, to wish him no other title, or to vest him with any other powers.”119 Virginia’s “Anti-titulus” warned that the splendor of a title could blind the people to the true nature of the man who held it: “away then with titles. . . . Let the successors of the IMMORTAL WASHINGTON

156

C H APT ER 6

imitate his virtues. They will want no other security for the respect, the love, and the admiration of mankind.” A modest title both restrained the power of the executive and helped to reveal the essence of a leader so that the people could discern his likeness to the ideal, Washington.120 By the spring of 1791, newspaper coverage of Washington’s tour of the southern states signaled the widespread shift toward the simple appellation of “President of the United States” that occurred over the course of Washington’s second year in office. “Illustrious” appeared in toasts and in references to the president’s character, as it (with references to his sacred destiny) habitually did at his birthday celebrations.121 However, the use of “Highness” disappeared and “Excellency” dwindled in public accounts referencing Washington (throughout his life, private correspondents frequently addressed him as “excellency” and “general”).122 Whether reporting on the president’s travels, treaties, proclamations, or the latest levee, newspapers used the full “President of the United States” (sometimes adding “of America”) as the title of choice. Indeed, Washington’s name accompanied with his unadorned title atop treaties and proclamations announced the president’s power and command, which added heft to the simple honorific.123 Although the president’s southern tour again resembled a royal progress, the plain title represented the norm.124 Again, the adulation he encountered (“perfumed with the incense of addresses”) discomfited some Americans. These demonstrations bore too much resemblance to a “Monarchy to be used by Republicans, or to be received with pleasure by a President of a Commonwealth.”125 And again, the extravagance worked to depress the cause of titles and solidify Washington as the ideal of executive leadership. The “unlimited respect” paid Washington in the southern states exhibited “striking proof that titles are not necessary to procure it.” To those who claimed that the people feted “the MAN, and not the station. So much the better. Let it teach rulers hereafter to be MEN.” Since there could be only one Washington, other American leaders must strive for the innate “magesty, serenity, wisdom, or excellency” epitomized by the president. The American people should approve of nothing that tempted or masked the vices associated with power. Grand titles offered deceptive substitutes for true leaders of “real merit,” like Washington.126 It is not surprising that Washington’s depiction of republican executive leadership set the standard in the early Republic. It is, however, more surprising that although exorbitant celebrations greeted him wherever he went and remained an acceptable expression of all he deserved, the pomp and parade convinced Americans that among all leaders only the “modest Washington” could be trusted with the public’s adulation. The lavish outpourings

Figure 10. George Washington, by Gilbert Stuart, the portrait copy commissioned by Connecticut, ca. 1800. Stuart’s studiously and overtly republican President Washington, standing in his plain suit with his hand on what may be the Constitution, sent a message of power coupled with modesty and a reference to the people. Other paintings of the president from the period often conveyed a similar ideal of presidential leadership. This particular painting is often referred to as the Munro-Lenox portrait. George Washington, accession no. 1910.1.1, State Archives, Connecticut State Library.

158

C H APT ER 6

honoring him demonstrated that a president needed no exalted title to claim the country’s highest regard or wield personal authority. Like the widespread aversion to aristocratic pretensions illustrated by the condemnation of Adams, Washington’s republican example and the people’s rejection of his monarchal third body of sovereignty contributed to a model of presidential leadership that marginalized title advocacy.127 During the period of the title controversy, Washington, a powerful and republican executive for the fledgling nation, avoided identification with the “dangerous vice” of monarchy (a perception that attached to his vice president John Adams) and, crucially, understood and reflected the people’s preference for a modicum of modesty in their leader (Figure 10). While Washington defined the presidency, he held the “specter of monarchy” at bay. As often happens with American presidents the longer they inhabit the office, the dynamic eventually shifted. When the presidency began to define Washington, he suffered accusations of monarchism. But those years were yet to come.128 Through the cathartic public debate over titles, the American people balanced their love of equality and their adoration of Washington and came to rest on a republican understanding of robust executive leadership that rejected regal titles and the monarchy they symbolized. In the process, the people bolstered reconciliation with the office of the presidency, an office that they now had helped to define. America’s emerging paradigm of energetic democratic leadership recognized the interdependence that must exist between the president and the people in order for that leader to be the trusted “custodian of the national idea.”129 One of the hallmarks of the American presidential ideal, established by the outcome of the title controversy, became a persona that embraced a measure of self-conscious restraint in its exercise of the palpable power of the president.

Conclusion The Path to American Democratic Leadership

Attitudes toward the presidency remained precariously unresolved in 1789. Americans sought a clearer understanding of their new national executive before they could accept the power implied by the office. Yet, the Constitution left too much unexplained about the country’s singular central authority, and revolutionary fears of monarchy were thus aroused anew. The resolution of the conflict over titles marked by the endorsement of the modest address of “President of the United States” certainly offered the people relief from their fear of an elective king. The anxiety born of the ambiguity in the Constitution, however, meant that the title controversy formed the leading edge of increasingly partisan struggles over constitutional interpretations of executive authority. Concerns about the weakness or strength of the president would continue to shape future deliberations over the veto, removal, treaty-making, and other powers to which the Constitution only alludes. Both the legislative and public debates on titles served as indispensable extensions of an unfinished ratification discourse regarding the presidency. The Constitution’s outline of the executive branch proved too brief and vague for ratification debates to adequately answer questions concerning the strength or weakness of the president. The failure of Antifederalist arguments to address a middle ground between the president as despotic monarch or as a tool of the Senate resulted more from a lack of adequate information 159

160

CONC LUSION

about how the executive would operate than from an inability to imagine any other scenario. Without a thorough challenge of the presidency, Federalists glossed over lingering monarchical questions, including their own, during ratification. Their trust in the legislature or George Washington to somehow make the country “right” with the new central executive resolved nothing fundamental. The Antifederalists’ sideways focus on the danger of Senate cabals likewise brought few answers. Those engaged in the dispute over an executive title exhibited an extraordinary protectiveness toward the new office of the president. Amid their differences, both sides of the debate took up altruistic republican positions. They strove to shield the presidency, one of the structural posts of an unproven Constitution (“a roof without walls”), from what they considered to be the pivotal weakness in the British system that had caused the rift of war. Although they disagreed on the appropriate title for and powers of the chief executive, each side understood the office of the president to be critical to the formation of a durable and effective government. Moreover, they agreed that George Washington modeled precisely what they sought in the new central executive.1 Nothing signaled the early Republic’s apprehension over the presidency more than the unanimous election of Washington. A galvanizing and yet ambivalent figure, Washington was the iconic hero who elicited outpourings of unparalleled adoration and gratitude from most every American. He was also both the ultimate example of republican perfection and a figure of quasi-regal sovereignty. A confused country wanted a president great enough to lead America to its magnificent destiny, but worried that the equivalent of a monarch might become one. In Washington, people tended to see what they wanted to see, and therefore felt secure as long as the presidency was occupied by their idol. After he left office, however, there would be only uncertainty. Amid this widespread confusion about the presidency, Congress imposed republican clarity with its resolution of the title question in favor of the plain “President of the United States,” and placed a term on the person of the president that allayed concerns over monarchism. Opponents of high-toned honorifics established ground rules against a regal presidency—doubtful constitutionality, forsaken republican principles, encouragement of inappropriate distinction, creation of opportunities for the abuse of power, and betrayal of the Washingtonian ideal—that would inform later deliberations over executive branch power and the implementation of executive authority. Indeed, despite the persistence of titles of distinction for state and military elites throughout the country, the example set by the title controversy’s

CO N C LUS I O N

161

outcome continued the siege on designations of status that flourished with the Revolution and appeared to represent a substantial and growing consensus among Americans. The disapproval in Massachusetts toward lofty titles for the governor, even among those who habitually protected state sovereignty and were most suspicious of federal authority, indicated a progressive leap in perspective. Foes of grandiose honorifics actually pointed to the federal example in their efforts to craft egalitarian standards for the states and for American society more generally. Congress, the Constitution, and the presidency thus attained an essential level of acceptance from a broad political spectrum of Americans by means of a seemingly simple decision regarding the presidential title. The founding tenets of American executive leadership required modesty, and this moderation was effectively established by the decision favoring the plain title of “President.” Those tenets also demanded an acknowledgment of interdependence between the people and their leader, invoked by Washington’s recognition of and stance with the popular will against a grand executive title. Washington represented an ideal national leader, one that embodied republican honor. Officeholders were elected out of the people and were to represent the people. These republican interpretations of executive authority thus symbolically and practically rejected Washington’s third sovereign body and all regal implications for the presidency. The title “Mr. President,” so commonly heard today at televised press conferences, never attached to Washington, who continued to be addressed as “Sir,” “General,” and “Excellency” (his title as commander in chief during the Revolutionary War) until the end of his days. Americans loved Washington and derived great joy from celebrating him in a manner inspired by royalism. However, private gossip and pubic commentary about the extravagance of Washington’s visits to New England and the South and other monarchal renditions elicited by his celebrity showed that everyday citizens and politicians would not allow such excessive adoration to be bestowed on any other elected official. It followed, as the people contemplated a presidency without Washington, that if no one else could be trusted with monarchal display and the people’s complete devotion, the glorification of leaders had no place in America’s future. That conclusion also implied that the ritualistic and pretentious court culture surrounding Washington had little future beyond his terms in office. The rejection of a regal title for the president represented a nail in the coffin of residual monarchism in the society of the early Republic. “Mr. President” would be the way of the future, not just as a formal title but also as a guiding notion for organizing the trappings of the office.

162

CONC LUSION

Although the moderate title of “President” solidified the country’s aversion to regal distinctions and protected the executive from the stigma of monarchism, a court culture persisted within elite federal circles. In the ensuing years of Washington’s presidency, critics attacked monarchical pretensions among Federalist elected officials and appointees. And as Washington’s time in office lengthened, he was granted increasingly less immunity to such criticism. In 1792, Edward Thornton, secretary to George Hammond, England’s minister to the United States, noted Washington’s “certain dislike to monarchy,” but nevertheless mentioned his “very kingly style” of travel. By the next year, American sympathizers of the French Revolution disparaged “the President himself for his levees and other appendages of Monarchy and Aristocracy.”2 Then, as Washington prepared to leave office in 1797, the “Republican Court” in Philadelphia celebrated his birthday “with all the splendor the Country could afford.” An admiring Henrietta Liston, wife of Hammond’s successor, Robert Liston, thought he “moved [like] a Monarch.” This brilliant moment of regal display, less than three years before Washington’s death, could be considered a last unalloyed demonstration of the culture of monarchism, which adhered to the first president but could not survive his departure from office and death in 1799.3 Unfortunately for Adams and most members of the emerging Federalist Party, they failed to grasp how central Washington was to the people’s tenuous tolerance of elite presumptions. Given the monarchal baggage Adams carried, his election as the country’s second president constituted an enormous tribute to the monumental strength of Washington’s coattails for him and the Federalist Party. During Adams’s one term as president, critics enjoyed the advantage of being able to use his past support of high-toned titles as part of their repertoire of political invective. In a series of essays, “Democritus” assailed the high-handed policies of “His Serene Highness John Adams.”4 Another critic discredited Adams and the recently passed Alien and Sedition Acts with: “We are afraid of having any dealing with his Serene Highness the President since the passing of the gag bill.”5 Without Washington at the helm, the Federalist Party of the nineteenth century received no dispensation from the association with monarchism. The party’s past penchants for titles and the federal court culture weakened Federalists nationally and at the local ballot box. For example, during the fiery public debate over titles in the summer of 1789, Massachusetts representative Elbridge Gerry, who held the principles of the Revolution at the core of his political understanding, worried that the Constitution would “verge to a monarchy” and “hereditary establishment” without amend-

CO N C LUS I O N

163

ments. By 1800, he viewed the Federalist Party, not the Constitution, as the real threat and a force actively “devoted to a monarchical system.”6 Republicanism took on a partisan rather than constitutional character, and Federalists who clung to increasingly outmoded forms of address and ritual made it easy for the new Democratic Republican Party to sweep them aside. With the turn-of-the-century election of Democratic Republican Thomas Jefferson and his swift elimination of levees and ritualistic ceremony for the presidency, any lingering vestiges of Washington’s third body were cast away. Admittedly, the empowerment that elite women experienced within the court culture also was swept away, and the “parlor politics” of the future inhabited a more fluid and unofficial social sphere.7 But, would-be American aristocrats, once described by Comte de Moustier as “infatuated” with “hereditary nobility,” found that they most certainly now lived in a republican nation in which political authority had a decidedly populist cast.8 Intriguingly, one of the legacies of the title controversy may be the casualty of the professional relationship of the presidency to the vice presidency and a consequent consolidation of executive authority in the president. Adams’s promotion of executive titles without Washington’s knowledge or approval coupled with other aspects of his career may have damaged Washington’s trust in him to such a degree that Washington relegated Adams to a minimal role, which set a precedent for a diminished vice presidency. The push for an exalted title did more than personally upset Washington; it exacerbated distrust of the new government in the president’s home state of Virginia and elsewhere, something that Washington strove to avoid. His sensitivity to public doubts about the presidency may have caused Washington to distance himself from Adams within his first year in office and “doomed the vice presidency to political impotence.” Derided as “The Dangerous Vice” and “His Rotundity,” Adams alarmed his revolutionary cohorts, lost political influence, acquired a reputation as a monarchist, and clouded his patriotic credentials. It is likely that Washington, as an astute political survivor, dissociated himself from the unpopular Adams and the vice presidency, never to return.9 In an astonishing example of shortsightedness, Adams contributed to the insignificance and marginalization of the vice presidency by his limited interpretation of his overall mission. In his confusion over which of his job titles he should consider paramount if the president visited the Senate—“I am Vice President, in this I am nothing, but I may be everything, but I am President also of the Senate”—he depreciated the vice presidency from the

164

CONC LUSION

beginning. Adams allowed his responsibility as president of the Senate to dominate and define his duties. He should have lodged his subsequent complaints that the role of vice president was “insignificant” and “too inactive, and mechanical” at his own door.10 Based on his adversarial behavior toward the senators in his first months in office, Adams regarded himself as the chief protector of the presidency against Senate cabals and certain corruption of the president. His deepseated misgivings and suspicion of the devious designs of state elites dictated his constant, often-overbearing presence in the chamber. It is no wonder that the senators increasingly bristled at his conduct and trimmed his sails within his first month in office (limiting vice presidential influence in the Senate, as well). Even after all the criticism he received, as the first session of Congress came to an end, Adams still maintained that “if the executive has not weight . . . an unbalanced Legislative is a tyranny.” By then, though, his comment conveyed the sting of personal experience, as well as the ring of political principle. Adams’s overwhelming dread of the aristocracy of the Senate resulted in setting tight boundaries around the scope of vice presidential power, just as it lay at the root of his advocacy of honorifics. Ironically, his sacrifice of the vice presidency empowered the president to dominate the executive branch and helped create the energetic leader that Adams had sought through grand titles.11 As Adams learned firsthand when his candidacy for a second term as president fell to Jefferson and a broader Democratic Republican landslide, political power can be had without regal trappings. Indeed, from the beginning of his presidency, Jefferson displayed a practical understanding of the new first principles of presidential leadership. His scrupulous lack of pretension and his frank and frequent acknowledgment of the interdependence between the president and the will of the people signaled that his authority was republican in character. Although Jefferson viewed executive authority with a somewhat “ambivalent pragmatism,” he used his vaunted simplicity and claims of connection with the everyday American to establish a “doctrine of democratic energy” that both expanded and demarcated the president’s “prerogative power.” With the Louisiana Purchase and his defense of its huge expansion of the “empire of liberty,” Jefferson exercised a vast presidential power when he “temporarily set aside the law in order to effect the public good,” as he viewed it, and then explained his action “so that the people may be able to judge it.” He further empowered the presidential leadership ideal “by democratizing it.”12 Jefferson demonstrated that future presidents of the United States could inhabit a democratic leadership model without a diminution of executive

CO N C LUS I O N

165

power or a curtailment of the “national ambitions” that Americans expected in the early Republic. Washington’s representation of the presidential ideal had not diminished his energy in office, but then his personal power and status were great advantages. Jefferson expanded the title controversy’s republican paradigm to a democratic version that tempered but did not weaken presidential power. However, even though Jefferson’s vision was “radically opposed to central authority . . . it was aggressively national, even imperial in its ambitions.” Western expansion by the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory increased the potential power of the federal government, even as it “inverted the geographic locus of national authority: it projected national power toward the periphery.” Jefferson amassed and expanded executive authority (metaphor ically doubling his power in physical and jurisdictional space) and, yet, diffused that authority to a cadre of local territorial administrators. Jefferson’s nonhierarchical approach allowed his power to be “hidden in plain sight” as it spread to “the margins of the nation.”13 The ultimate legacy of the title dispute is an expansion and consolidation of presidential power within the limits placed on the president that governing in a popular sovereignty brings. Foremost of those limits are the people’s demand for restraint (essentially a command over the power of command) and for an acknowledgment of their will from the country’s leader, as the modest and republican Washington displayed with his preference for a simple title. The presidential title controversy of 1789 illuminated the path laid out by the Constitution and led to a conception of American democratic leadership that found no contradiction between democracy and strong executive authority. When viewed through the lens of the fight over an executive title, today’s periodic discord over a looming imperial presidency continues a long-standing inclination for anxious care and protectiveness toward the office, which prevails despite the lingering whiff of the “third body” phenomenon that is evident in the avid fascination with power and charisma in popular culture. The dispute became the first battle over the role of an increasingly formidable American president, whose place at the head of a country with the enormous potential of the United States quickly instilled power and prestige to the office despite, and more significantly because of, the unadorned title of “President.”

A p pen dix

Senate Resolution on a Presidential Title May 14, 1789 The Committee appointed . . . “To consider and report under what TITLE it will be proper for the Senate to address the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA,” REPORTED—That in the opinion of the Committee it will be proper thus to address the PRESIDENT—HIS HIGHNESS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND PROTECTOR OF THEIR LIBERTIES.— Which report was postponed— And the following resolve was agreed to; to wit:— From a decent respect for the opinion and practice of civilized nations, whether under monarchical or republican forms of government, whose custom is to annex TITLES of respectability of the OFFICE of their CHIEF MAGISTRATE; and that, on the intercourse with foreign nations, a due respect for the majesty of the people of the United States, may not be hazarded by an appearance of singularity; the Senate have been induced to be of opinion, that it would be proper to annex a RESPECTABLE TITLE 167

168

AP P E N D IX

to the OFFICE of PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES: But the Senate, DESIROUS OF PRESERVING HARMONY with the House of Representatives, where the practice lately observed in presenting an address to the PRESIDENT was without the addition of TITLES, think it proper for the present to act in conformity with the practice of that House:— Therefore RESOLVED, that the present address be—“To the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES”—without addition of TITLE.1

Notes

The following abbreviations are used in the notes: Abigail Adams AFMT AFP

APS Ballagh DHFFC

DHFFC-Correspondence

DHFFC-WMD

DHFFE

DHROC

Mitchell, Stewart, ed. New Letters of Abigail Adams, 1788– 1801. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947. Adams Family Manuscript Trust. Massachusetts Historical Society. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society, http://www.masshist.org /digitaladams/. American Periodicals Series Online, 1740–1900. Digital database of magazine and journal articles. Ballagh, James Curtis, ed. The Letters of Richard Henry Lee. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1914. Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Kenneth R. Bowling, Linda Grant De Pauw, William Charles diGiacomantonio, and Helen E. Veit, eds. The Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789–March 3, 1791. Vols. 1–8, 10–14. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972–1995. Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Kenneth R. Bowling, Helen E. Veit, and William Charles diGiacomantonio, eds. The Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789–March 3, 1791: Correspondence. Vols. 15–20. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004, 2011. Bowling, Kenneth R., and Helen E. Veit, eds. The Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789–March 3, 1791: The Diary of William Maclay and Other Notes on Senate Debates. Vol. 9. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Becker, Robert A., Merrill Jensen, and Gordon DenBoer, eds. The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections, 1788–1790. 4 vols. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1976. Kaminski, John P., Merrill Jensen, Gaspare J. Saladino, and Richard Leffler, eds. The Documentary History of the

169

170

NOTES TO PAGE 1

EAI

Farrand: Records

GWP PAH

PEC

PGW: Colonial

PGW: Confederation

PGW: Presidential

PGW: Retirement

PJM

Thorpe

Ratification of the Constitution. Vols. 1–10, 13–22. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1976–2009. Early American Imprints, Series I: Evans, 1639–1800. Digital database of books, pamphlets, and broadside published in America; based on Charles Evans’s American Bibliography and Roger Bristol’s supplement. Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Rev. ed., 4 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966–1987. George Washington Papers. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division. Syrett, Harold C., and Jacob E. Cooke, eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Vol. 5. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America. Francis L. Hawk and General Convention Collection of Early Episcopal Church Manuscripts. Reprinted by permission of the Archives of the Episcopal Church, USA. Abbot, William Wright, Dorothy Twohig, and Philander D. Chase, eds. The Papers of George Washington: Colonial Series. 10 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983–1995. Abbot, William Wright, and Dorothy Twohig, eds. The Papers of George Washington: Confederation Series. 6 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992–1997. Abbot, William Wright, Dorothy Twohig, Philander D. Chase, David R. Hoth, Christine Sternberg Patrick, and Theodore J. Crackel, eds. The Papers of George Washington: Presidential Series. 14 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1987—. Abbot, William Wright, and Dorothy Twohig, eds. The Papers of George Washington: Retirement Series. 4 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998–1999. Hobson, Charles F., Robert A. Rutland, and William M. E. Rachal et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, Congressional Series. Vols. 12–13. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979–1981. Thorpe, Francis Newton, ed. The Federal and State Constitution, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the States,Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America. 7 vols. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909.

Introduction

1. Lance Banning, The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), 275. After the consid-

NOT ES TO PA G ES 2 – 3

171

eration of oaths of office (which proceeded without controversy), the deliberation over executive titles became the second instance of constitutional interpretation and the first dispute over constitutional intent. Introduced in the House on April 14, 1789, the administration of an oath of office in support of the Constitution became the first congressional consideration of constitutional intent. Senate and House discussion of an oath proceeded thoughtfully and without great controversy, a marked difference with the consideration of executive branch titles. The oath discussion ran somewhat parallel in time to the title debate, which began in the Senate nine days later. House Oath Act, bill introduced April 14, 1789; Senate Oath Act, May 5, 1789; final House bill signed into law by the president, June 1, 1789. DHFFC 1:28, 35–37, 51–52, 56, 58; 3:9, 21, 24, 32–33, 39, 52, 67–71, 78. Titles introduced April 23, 1789, DHFFC 1:24. 2. Forrest McDonald, The Presidency of George Washington (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1974), 29. For example, John Miller attached no import to the title controversy and decreed: “All that came of it was that Vice President John Adams was given the derisive title of ‘His Rotundity.’ ” John Chester Miller, The Federalist Era, 1789–1801 (New York: Harper, 1960), 9. In his examination of the presidency’s first year, James Hart reminded us that “in 1789 we were an infant republic in a monarchist world,” and placed the controversy within the “symbolic phase of [the] eternal struggle” between the many and the few, yet he overlooked the public debate and flatly concluded that with the Senate resolution, “the question soon ceased to be a question and the incident passed into historical oblivion.” James Hart, The American Presidency in Action, 1789: A Study in Constitutional History (New York: Macmillan, 1948), 52, 46. John Ferling observes that the first federal legislators, “as if they had nothing better to do, squandered several days in a debate over the best title” for the president. John E. Ferling, The First of Men: A Life of George Washington (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988), 377. See also PGW: Presidential 2:249. The editors opine that the disagreement over titles took “a disproportionate amount of the time of both the Senate and the House.” 3. Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1996), 244–87; Saul Cornell, The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788–1828 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 30–34, published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. 4. Ezra Stiles Diary, New Haven, CT, December 24, 1787, DHROC 3:502. A Congregational minister in New Haven, Stiles was president of Yale from 1778 until he died in 1795. DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1885. 5. DHROC 3:509, 566. 6. As Alan Gibson emphasizes, “the Founders’ opposition to monarchical absolutism, the rule of men rather than the rule of law, and British corruption was at once the progenitor and the product of the American Revolution.” Alan Gibson, Understanding the Founding:The Crucial Questions (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007), 159. 7. Peter Shaw, The Character of John Adams (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976), 237, published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA; Andy Trees, “John Adams and the Problem of

172

NOTES TO PAGES 3 –5

Virtue,” Journal of the Early Republic 21, no. 3 (2001): 394–95, 411; Joseph J. Ellis, Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams (New York: Norton, 2001), 153. See also Edward Handler, America and Europe in the Political Thought of John Adams (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964), 223; David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 406; Andrew S. Trees, The Founding Fathers and the Politics of Character (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 75–105. 8. Gilbert Chinard, Honest John Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, 1933), 227–28. 9. Page Smith, John Adams, 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1962), 2:758; John E. Ferling, John Adams: A Life (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992), 302. Smith based his rumor claim on a diary entry where Maclay speculated about Washington’s opinion, but Maclay wrote that he had “no Clue” what the president thought on the matter (DHFFC-WMD 9:40). Ferling cites no evidence for his statement. For the viewpoint of Washington biographers, see James Thomas Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation, 1783–1793 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), 182–83; Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington, a Biography, 7 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1948), 6:186. 10. James Hutson, “John Adams’ Title Campaign,” New England Quarterly 41, no. 1 (1968): 35, 38. The Adams quote within the quote is from John Adams to Nathaniel Sargent, May 22, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:610. See also Richard Alan Ryerson, “ ‘Like a Hare before the Hunters’: John Adams and the Idea of Republican Monarchy,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 3rd ser., vol. 107 (1995): 16–29. 11. Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992). To draw on John Higham’s idea of an era’s essence as the “spirit of an age,” the spirit of the early Republic as it related to the president evinced a complex of anxieties with an overlay of protectiveness. John Higham, “The Reorientation of American Culture in the 1890s,” in Hanging Together: Unity and Diversity in American Culture, ed. Carl J. Guarneri (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001), 174. 12. Paul K. Longmore, The Invention of George Washington (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 201. In addition to Longmore, other influences on my perspective of Washington’s iconic place in the popular culture (rather than on the man himself ) include: Gary Wills, Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984); Catherine L. Albanese, Sons of the Fathers: The Civil Religion of the American Revolution (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1976), 3–18, 143–81; Conrad Cherry, ed., God’s New Israel: Religious Interpretations of American Destiny (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), 1–21, 61–66; Barry Schwartz, George Washington:The Making of an American Symbol (New York: Free Press, 1987), 13–89; Schwartz, “The Character of Washington: A Study in Republican Culture,” American Quarterly (Summer, 1986): 202–22; Marcus Cunliffe, George Washington, Man and Monument (New York: New American Library, 1958), 4–5. For examples of accounts of Washington’s essential role during the founding period, see Ron Chernow, Washington, A Life (New York, Penguin Press, 2010); James Thomas Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation, 1783–1793 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970); Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man (Boston: Little,

NOT ES TO PA G ES 5 – 7

173

Brown, 1974); Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington: A Biography, 7 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1948); Richard Norton Smith, Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993); Edmund Sears Morgan, The Genius of George Washington, George Rogers Clark Lecture, 3 (New York: Norton, 1980). 13. Edmund Sears Morgan, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (New York: Norton, 1988), 17–29, 78–93; Ernst Hartwig Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology, 2nd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), 7–23, 314–450. 14. Massachusetts Centinel, January 21, 1789. In response, a writer in the Boston Gazette asked “who the ‘Hon. Mr. Ames’ is?—as he perceives such a gentleman is mentioned in the Centinel as belonging to the Honourable House of Representatives of this Commonwealth—if it is Fisher Ames, Esquire, of Dedham, who is chosen Federal Representative for Suffolk . . . [he] presumes to doubt the propriety of the Title.” Boston Gazette, January 26, 1789: also appeared in Pennsylvania Packet, February 6, 1789; and Virginia Centinel, February 25, 1789. 15. For more interplay of articles on the use of “Honourable,” see Massachusetts Centinel, January 28 and 31, and February 4, 1789; Boston Gazette, February 2 and 9, 1789; Independent Chronicle, January 29 and February 5, 1789. For the continued use of “Honourable” for federal representatives and “Most Honourable” for federal senators, see examples in the Massachusetts Centinel: “Most Hon. Tristram Dalton, Esq.” and “Hon. Mr. Patridge [Partridge],” April 1, 1789; “Hon. Mr. Livermore,” April 4, 1789; “Hon. Mr. Ames” and “Hon. Mr. Madison,” April 22, 1789; and “Most Hon. Mr. Langdon Mr. Wingate Mr. Izard Mr. Few and Mr. Muhlenburg, Speaker of the Hon. House of Representatives of the United States,” June 3, 1789. For continued backlash and pushback, see: Independent Chronicle, June 4 and July 30, 1789; Massachusetts Centinel, June 6, 1789. 16. As a mere sampling, the multiple traditions of the American founding are explored in: Alan Gibson, Understanding the Founding: The Crucial Questions (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007), 130–64; Gibson, Interpreting the Founding: Guide to the Enduring Debates over the Origins and Foundations of the American Republic (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006), 53–63; Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985); Lance Banning, “Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and Classical Ideas in the New American Republic,” William and Mary Quarterly 42 (1987); Daniel T. Rodgers, “Republicanism: The Career of a Concept,” Journal of American History 79, no. 1 (1992): 11–38. 17. DHFFC 1:45; 3:45. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates only that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Farrand: Records 2: 657. See also Charlene Bangs Bickford and Kenneth R. Bowling, Birth of the Nation:The First Federal Congress, 1789–1791 (Lanham, MD: Madison House, 1989), 23–28. 18. DHFFC-WMD 9:xi–xviii; DHFFC 1:vii–xiii. 19. DHFFC 3:vii–xvii; 10:xi–xlviii. For example, see James Madison to Edmund Randolph, May 10, 1789, and Edmund Randolph to James Madison, May 19, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:502–3, 594.

174

NOTES TO PAGES 7 –1 1

20. DHFFC 10:xvi–xl, 592–95. Newspapers that provided summaries of House proceedings—like the regular entries in John Fenno’s Gazette of the United States and the more occasional items in Archibald McLean’s New York Daily Gazette—reported in a timely manner. The New York Daily Advertiser benefited from the accomplished shorthand skills of its publisher, Francis Childs, and produced longer synopses on a laudably short turnaround until Childs became involved in state politics and had less time for transcription. Thomas Lloyd’s Congressional Register furnished the most complete breakdown of House debates, but the three-week time lag for his first issue became more prolonged as time passed. The accounts in the Congressional Register that contained recaps of a short House mention of titles on May 5 and the pointed discussion of May 11 were not published until July 11 and 30, 1789, respectively. DHFFC 10:xxix–xl, 429, 582–86. 21. DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1753–54, 1791, 1794, 1852, 1871–72. 22. Stuart Eric Leibiger, Founding Friendship: George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999). I address Washington’s position against a grand executive title, and unsupported claims to the contrary, in chapter 6. 23. Stanley M. Elkins and Eric L. McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 46. 24. Jerrilyn Greene Marston, King and Congress: The Transfer of Political Legitimacy, 1774–1776 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), 303, 307. See also Jack Rakove, The Beginning of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1979); Benjamin H. Irvin, Clothed in Robes of Sovereignty: The Continental Congress and the People Out of Doors (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography (New York: Random House, 2005); Jack P. Greene, Peripheries and Center: Constitutional Development in the Extended Polities of the British Empire and the United States, 1607– 1788 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986); Elkins and McKitrick, Age of Federalism. 25. Ralph Ketcham, Presidents above Party: The First American Presidency, 1789– 1829 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 8, published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. Ketcham is the best and one of the only historians to take a nonparty approach to a study of the early years of the presidency. However, other useful and related works include: Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992); Trevor Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience:Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1998); Trevor Colbourn, ed., Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair, rev. ed. (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1998); Jack Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1996); Trees, Founding Fathers. 26. Ketcham, Presidents above Party, 3. 27. Marc Landy and Sidney M. Milkis, Presidential Greatness (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2000), 3. Of the wealth of scholarship with a political/partyoriented approach to constitutional governance and the presidency, I list a few additional works of especial use to me: Glenn Phelps, George Washington and Ameri-

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 1 – 1 4

175

can Constitutionalism (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993); Sidney M. Milkis and Michael Nelson, The American Presidency: Origins and Development, 1776–2011, 6th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2012); Alan Gibson, Interpreting the Founding: Guide to the Enduring Debates over the Origins and Foundations of the American Republic (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006); James Roger Sharp, American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993); Norman K. Risjord, comp. The Early American Party System (New York: Harper and Row, 1969); Leonard D. White, The Federalists: A Study in Administrative History, 1789–1801 (New York: Free Press, 1948). 28. Landy and Milkis, Presidential Greatness, 49, 3. 29. Brian Balogh, The Government Out of Sight:The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 379 (italics in original). See also Landy and Milkis, Presidential Greatness, 22–33. 30. Ronald Inglehart, “Culture and Democracy,” in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, ed. Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 96. 31. Two of the best evocations of the early Republic’s vibrant popular political culture and most useful in contextualizing this study of the title controversy are: Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010); Simon P. Newman, Parades and the Politics of the Street: Festive Culture in the Early American Republic, Early American Studies (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997). 1. An “Improper Distinction of Ranks”

1. Edmund Sears Morgan, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (New York: Norton, 1988), 170. See also Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1992), 20–28; Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), 38–41. A title is “an appellation attaching to an individual or family in virtue of rank, function, office, or attainment, or the possession of or association with certain lands, etc; esp. an appellation of honour pertaining to a person of high rank.” Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). 2. Wood, Radicalism, 233. For commentary on the excessive use of “Esquire,” see New York Daily Gazette, April 1, 1789. 3. Alan Taylor, “From Fathers to Friends of the People: Political Personas in the Early Republic,” Journal of the Early Republic 11, no. 4 (1991): 466. Examples of these postrevolutionary changes also are examined in Robert H. Abzug, Cosmos Crumbling: American Reform and the Religious Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Alan Taylor, William Cooper’s Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early American Republic (New York: A. A. Knopf, distributed by Random House, 1995); Albert H. Tillson, Gentry and Common Folk: Political Culture on a Virginia Frontier, 1740–1789 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1991); Bushman, Refinement of America; Wood, Radicalism.

176

NOTES TO PAGES 1 4 –1 7

4. Charles Edgar Gilliam, “Mr in Virginia Records before 1776,” William and Mary Quarterly 19, no. 2 (1939): 142. 5. Ibid., 142–43. 6. Ibid., 144. 7. Bushman, Refinement of America, 40. For the continued and preferred use of military titles, see Morgan, Inventing the People, 170 8. State of Maryland, “Proceedings of the Convention of the Province of Maryland, Held at the City of Annapolis, on Wednesday the Eighth of May, 1776” (Archives of Maryland, 1776), vol. 3145, May 8 and 14, 1776, and throughout. 9. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, A Midwife’s Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785–1812 (New York: Vintage Books, 1990), 98–99. 10. Ibid. 11. Georgia Gazette, July 17, 1790 (also appeared in the City Gazette, June 25, 1790; New York Daily Gazette, July 12, 1790; New York Packet, July 13, 1790; Pennsylvania Packet, July 16, 1790; Massachusetts Spy, July 23, 1790; Herald of Freedom, July 23, 1790; Salem Gazette, July 27, 1790; Litchfield Monitor, August 2, 1790; Western Star, August 3, 1790; New Hampshire Gazette, August 5, 1790; Newport Herald, August 5, 1790; and Concord Herald, September 7, 1790). 12. Paul K. Longmore, The Invention of George Washington (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 184–211. 13. Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington (New York: A. A. Knopf, 2004), 77–78. 14. See, for example, Edward F. De Lancey, George H. Moore, and William Libbey, eds., The Burghers of New Amsterdam and the Freemen of New York, 1675–1866 (New York: New York Historical Society, 1886); William L. Saunders, ed. The Colonial Records of North Carolina, vol. 8 (1769 to 1771) (Raleigh, NC: Josephus Daniels, Printer to the State, 1890). 15. Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). 16. State of Maryland, “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1742: A Proclamation by His Excellency Thomas Bladen Esqr Governor and Commander in Chief in and over the Province of Maryland” (Archives of Maryland, 1742). 17. For examples of state governors using “His Excellency” by 1789, see: for Virginia, “The Publication of Edmund Randolph’s Reasons for Not Signing the Constitution, Richmond, 27 December (1787),” DHROC 8:260–75; and for Rhode Island, “Proceedings of the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, at Newport, on the Second Monday in June, 1789,” and John Russell Bartlett, ed., Records of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England (Providence, RI: Providence Press Company, 1865), vol. 10, 332. The following examples are all found in DHFFE: for South Carolina, “Certificate of Qualification for South Carolina Electors, 11 February (1789)” and “Commissions of the South Carolina Senators, 4 March (1789),” 1:212–16; for Pennsylvania, “Supreme Executive Council Proceedings, Monday 5 January (1789)” and “Supreme Executive Council Proceedings, Saturday, 28 March (1789),” 1:380, 408; for Massachusetts, “Precept for the Second Election, Hampshire-Berkshire District, 6 January (1789),” 1:624–25; for New Hampshire, “Proclamation by President John Langdon, 10 October (1788),” 1:775–76; for Connecticut, “Resolutions Appointing Presidential Electors, 7 January (1789)” and “Votes of the

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 7 – 1 9

177

Connecticut Presidential Electors, 4 February,” 2:48–50; for Delaware, “Proclamation by President Thomas Collins, 24 January (1789)” and “Certificate of Election of the Delaware Presidential Electors, 6 March (1789),” 2:84–85; for Maryland, “Proclamation by Governor John E. Howard, 21 January (1789),” 2:207; for New Jersey, “Proclamation by Governor William Livingston, 7 January (1789)” and “Proclamation by Governor William Livingston, 19 March (1789),” 3:31, 106–7; for New York, “Proclamation by Governor George Clinton, 13 October (1788),” 3:206; and for North Carolina, “House and Senate Proceedings, Friday, A.M., 4 December (1789)” and “House and Senate Proceedings, Saturday, 5 December (1789),” 4:332–35. 18. Francis Newton Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitution, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America, 7 vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909), 2:778. For examples of the Georgia governor’s title as “His Honor,” see “Proclamation by Governor George Handley, 17 October (1788)” and “House and Executive Council Proceedings, Thursday, 13 November (1788),” DHFFE 2:434–35. An almanac published in 1789 listed all state governors, including Georgia’s, with the title “Excellency.” See “Gaine’s New-York Pocket Almanack, for the Year 1790,” EAI, no. 21973. For a former governor as “His Excellency,” see American Mercury, 12 January (1789),” DHFFE 2:49. 19. Thorpe, Federal and State Constitution. 20. For progression from the title “His Honor” to “His Excellency” in Connecticut, see Charles J. Hoadly, ed., The Public Records of the State of Connecticut, from October, 1776, to February, 1778, Inclusive with the Journal of the Council of Safety from October 11, 1776, to May 6, 1778, Inclusive, and an Appendix (Hartford, CT: Press of the Case, Lockwood and Brainard, 1894), 1, 155, 466–67. I owe special thanks to Manuscript Archivist Barbara Austen of the Connecticut Historical Society Museum for her assistance in this research. 21. Robert J. Taylor, ed., Massachusetts, Colony to Commonwealth: Documents on the Formation of Its Constitution, 1775–1780 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, VA. 22. Thorpe, Federal and State Constitution, 3:1889. See also Richard Alan Ryerson, “ ‘Like a Hare before the Hunters’: John Adams and the Idea of Republican Monarchy,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 3rd ser., vol. 107 (1995). 23. William Wirt Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, 3 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891), 1:452–56. 24. Ibid., 456–57. 25. Ibid., 457–58. 26. For “President General,” see William Paterson to Euphemia Paterson, March 24, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:109; Epes Sargent to Benjamin Goodhue, May 11, 1789, ibid., 516; Benjamin Thompson to James Madison, August 7, 1789, ibid., 16:1252. For titles for Washington in letters to him, see PGW: Confederation, PGW: Presidential, and PGW: Retirement, examples throughout. 27. Pierce Butler quoted in Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1996), 244.

178

NOTES TO PAGES 1 9 –2 1

28. William Jackson to George Washington, September 17, 1787 (excerpt), DHROC 1:318. 29. Charles Thomson to George Washington, November 5, 1781, GWP. Regarding a president of the Confederation, the Articles stipulate only that during recesses a Committee of the States, a small administrative body “for managing the general affairs of the United States” and made up of one delegate from each state, shall “appoint one of their number to preside; provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years.” Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution 1774–1781 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), 268. 30. “The President of the Convention to the President of Congress, 17 September [1787],” DHROC 1:305–6. See also Farrand: Records, 2:666–67. 31. Sidney M. Milkis and Michael Nelson, The American Presidency: Origins and Development, 1776–2011 (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2012), 52; Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography (New York: Random House, 2005), 131–35; Farrand: Records, 2:171, 185. The Committee of Detail consisted of John Rutledge of South Carolina (chairman), Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts. An early working draft of the Committee of Detail specified the executive as “Governor of the united People and States of America.” Farrand: Records, 2:145. Amar speculates that the likely reason for the switch to the term “president” for the designation of the Constitution’s new executive was Washington’s role as current “president” of the Philadelphia Convention. However, the awareness of Washington’s probable future role as the nation’s first federal executive also could have influenced the term “president,” as well as the title of “Excellency.” 32. Farrand: Records, 2:565. The Committee of Style consisted of William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut (chairman), Alexander Hamilton of New York, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, James Madison of Virginia, and Rufus King of Massachusetts. 33. Ibid., 2:572, 185, 575, 599. Documents received by the Committee of Detail when it began its work on July 23 included both terms, so earlier committees, at the very least, had discussed these designations. Both “title” and “style” (or “stile”) appear in the title debates somewhat interchangeably and indicate a form of address and a measure of distinction. Although “title” appears to have carried more aristocratic baggage than “style,” titles are also considered a legal subset of a style. Style is “a legal, official, or honorific title . . . the ceremonial designation of a sovereign, including his various titles and the enumeration of his dominions.” As for the usage of “style” for the Committee of Style, another definition appears to apply: “the authorized form for drawing up a deed or instrument . . . legal technicality of language or construction.” Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). 34. Farrand: Records, 2:597, 657. See also Catherine Drinker Bowen, Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966), 234–42.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 2 1 – 2 7

179

35. James Madison to Jared Sparks, April 8, 1831, in Farrand: Records, 3:498–99 (italics in original); DHROC 1:284. 36. Farrand: Records, 2:657 (italics added). 37. Jensen, Articles of Confederation, 264–65. 38. Farrand: Records, 3:327. 39. Ibid., 327n1. 40. Edmund Pendleton to James Madison, October 8, 1787, DHROC 13:355; Timothy Pickering to Charles Tillinghast, December 24, 1787, DHROC 14:194. 41. “The Federalist No. 84,” in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, ed. Garry Wills (New York: Bantam Books, 1982), 436. 42. From Thomas Rodney, April 15, 1788, DHROC 17:101. Rodney may have intended to publish the letter, which began merely “Dear Sir,” as a newspaper article. 43. Ibid., 17:370, 279–80. I address Federal Farmer’s discussion of aristocracy in chapter 2. 44. New-Hampshire Spy, June 24, 1788. Also available in DHROC 18:188. 45. DHROC 18:71. 46. DHFFC 1:361. 47. Pennsylvania Mercury, March 10, 1789 (also appeared in, the New-York Daily Gazette, March 17, 1789; Pennsylvania Packet, April 3, 1789; and Independent Gazetteer, April 4, 1789). 48. DHROC 5:636, 639. 49. John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:727. 50. John Adams to William Tudor, May 3, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:435–36. 51. [Eleanor-Francois-Elie] Comte de Moustier to [Armand-Marc] Comte de Montmorin, May 17, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:578. 52. John Adams to James Sullivan, September 21, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1592–93. 53. John Adams to William Tudor, May 3, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:435–36. 54. John Adams to William Tudor, June 28, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:871. 55. John Adams to Benjamin Lincoln, June 19, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:812. 56. John Adams to Jabez Bowen, June 26, 1789, and John Adams to Benjamin Rush, July 24, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:859, 1125. 57. John Adams to James Lovell, July 16, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1037–38. 58. Ibid. 59. John Adams to William Tudor, May 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:489; DHFFC-WMD 9:18. 60. John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:727. 61. John Adams to William Tudor, May 3, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:436.

180

NOTES TO PAGES 2 7 –3 3

62. William Barton to George Washington, August 28, 1788, PGW: Confederation 6:476–78. 63. Pamela Scott, Temple of Liberty: Building the Capitol for a New Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 11. For photographs of various versions of the Great Seal, including Barton’s original watercolor illustration, see p. 109. 64. William Barton to George Washington, August 28, 1788, PGW: Confederation 6:476–78 (italics added). 65. George Washington to William Barton, September 7, 1788, PGW: Confederation 6:501–3. 66. Ibid. 67. Ibid. See also Andrew S. Trees, The Founding Fathers and the Politics of Character (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004). 2. The Third Body of Washington

1. Brendan McConville, The King’s Three Faces:The Rise and Fall of Royal America, 1688–1776 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 313–14, published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. 2. “Song in Praise of General Washington,” American Museum, August 1788, APS. 3. “Marcus,” Herald of Freedom, December 18, 1788. 4. Edmund Sears Morgan, Inventing the People:The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (New York: Norton, 1988), 17–29, 78– 93, quotes on 83, 91. Morgan’s chapter 4, “The People’s Two Bodies,” discusses the evolution of the concept of the two bodies of popular sovereignty and the failed opportunity for popular sovereignty in seventeenth-century England. 5. Ibid., 91. Morgan did not specifically mention the Constitution nor did he address the presidency as a combination of the two bodies of popular sovereignty, but I believe this conclusion to be a natural and logical extension of his discussion. 6. Ernst Hartwig Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology, 2nd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), 7–23, 314– 450; Marc Bloch, The Royal Touch: Monarchies and Miracles in France and England, trans. J. E. Anderson (New York: Dorset Press, 1961), 1–48; Reinhard Bendix, “Sacred and Secular Foundations of Kingship,” in Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 21–60; Glenn Burgess, “The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered,” English Historical Review 107, no. 425 (1992): 837–61; Sarah Knott, Sensibility and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009), 245–46. 7. Bloch, Royal Touch, 30–31. For Bloch’s synopsis and evaluation of the history of the divine nature of monarchy, see especially 30–41. See also, Bendix, “Sacred and Secular Foundations.” 8. Kantorowicz, King’s Two Bodies, 7–10. 9. Edmund Plowden, The Commentaries or Reports of Edmund Plowden, of the Middle-Temple, Esq., 2 vols. (London: S. Brooke, Paternoster-Row, 1816), 1:212a. See also, Kantorowicz, King’s Two Bodies, 7–23, 437–50.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 3 3 – 3 6

181

10. Kantorowicz, King’s Two Bodies, 447. 11. J. C. D. Clark, English Society, 1660–1832 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 105. A special thanks to Dr. Varad Mehta for steering me to Clark’s work. 12. Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), 200–204. 13. David Hume, Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects (London: T. Cadell, 1788), 35. Quoted and discussed in Morgan, Inventing the People, 151. 14. David Hume, The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688, 6 vols. (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1983; based on the edition of 1778), vol. 1, chap. 3, para. 325. Quoted and discussed in Bloch, Royal Touch, 222. 15. Colley, Britons, 202. 16. Clark, English Society, 114, 117. 17. Bloch, Royal Touch, 219–28. 18. For the “continuity” interpretation, see Clark, English Society. For the “revival” approach, see Boyd Hilton, A Mad, Bad, and Dangerous People? England, 1783– 1846 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). See also Colley, Britons, esp., 204–36. Colley’s analysis recognizes both continuity and revival of divine right, but within what I view as a “transformative” context. 19. Colley, Britons, 232. See also Linda Colley, “The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty and the British Nation, 1760–1820,” Past and Present 102 (1984): 94–129. Arguing for an earlier (1760s) rise of George III’s popularity, see Paul Langford, Public Life and the Propertied Englishman, 1689–1798 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). Timothy Breen commented on the influence of English attitudes on American revolutionary culture with a thoughtful review of how the upwelling of English nationalism helped precipitate the American Revolution, in T. H. Breen, “Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution: Revisions Once More in Need of Revising,” Journal of American History 84, no. 1 (1997): 13–39. 20. The major influences on my conception of the third body of Washington are Morgan, Inventing the People; and Kantorowicz, King’s Two Bodies. Other important influences include Bloch, Royal Touch; Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol (New York: Free Press, 1987); and Catherine L. Albanese, Sons of the Fathers: The Civil Religion of the American Revolution (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1976). 21. Samuel Davies, “ ‘Religion and Patriotism the Constituents of a Good Soldier.’ A Sermon Preached to Captain Overton’s Independent Company of Volunteers, Raised in Hanover County, Virginia, August 17, 1755. By Samuel Davies, A.M. Minister of the Gospel There,” EAI, no. 7403 (1755): 9; Davies, “Religion and Patriotism, the Constituents of a Good Soldier,” in Sermons by the Rev. Samuel Davies, A.M., President of the College of New Jersey (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1864), 101. 22. Mary V. Thompson, “In the Hands of a Good Providence”: Religion in the Life of George Washington (Alexandria, VA: Mount Vernon Ladies Association, 2008), 210–51.

182

NOTES TO PAGES 3 6 –4 0

23. Paul K. Longmore, The Invention of George Washington (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 184, 200–201. 24. William B. Murrell, A History of American Graphic Humor, vol. 1 (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1933), 34. 25. Phyllis Wheatley’s letter, her poem, and a discussion of their possible importance to Washington can be found in Henry Wiencek, An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003), 205–14. 26. William Spohn Baker, Character Portraits of Washington as Delineated by Historians and Divines, Selected and Arranged in Chronological Order with Biographical Notes and References (Philadelphia: Robert M. Lindsay, 1887), 16–17 (Robin), 22–25 (Mandrillon). Abbé Claude Robin’s account is in one of thirteen letters he wrote as he traveled with the French and American armies from New York to Yorktown, Virginia, for that pivotal battle. Another of Baker’s portraits of Washington (26–29) from this period comes from the Marquis de Chastellux, a major general under the Count de Rochambeau and a friend of Washington. Chastellux observed: “The continent of North America, from Boston to Charles Town, is a great volume, every page of which presents his eulogium.” 27. Albanese, Sons of the Fathers, 148–53; William Spohn Baker, Medallic Portraits of Washington (Philadelphia: Robert M. Lindsay, 1885), 29; William Spohn Baker, Bibliotheca Washingtoniana: A Descriptive List of the Biographies and Biographical Sketches of George Washington (Philadelphia: Robert M. Lindsay, 1889), 16. 28. Russell Rulau, George Fuld, and George J. Fuld, Medallic Portraits of Washington (Iola, WI: Krause, 1999), 70. See also Baker, Medallic Portraits, 52. 29. Connecticut Journal, December 12, 1781. This article was probably from Pennsylvania Journal, November 28, 1781. 30. Freeman’s Journal, December 5, 1781. Mary Meanwell responded to the item in Pennsylvania Journal, November 28, 1781. 31. Massachusetts Spy, July 18, 1782, and Pennsylvania Packet, July 18, 1782. Both items begin “Albany, 28th June, 1782.” 32. Nathanael Green to George Washington, Charlestown, August 8, 1783, and Benjamin Guerard to George Washington, Charlestown, August 1, 1783, quoted in John P. Kaminski and Jill Adair McCaughan, A Great and Good Man: George Washington in the Eyes of His Contemporaries (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1989), 23–25. 33. Connecticut Journal, July 9, 1783; Freeman’s Journal, July 11, 1783. 34. Conrad Cherry, ed. God’s New Israel: Religious Interpretations of American Destiny (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), 63. 35. Ezra Stiles, “The United States Elevated to Glory and Honor: A Sermon, Preached before His Excellency Jonathan Trumbull, Esq. L.L.D., Governor and Commander in Chief, and the Honorable the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, convened at Hartford, at the Anniversary Election, May 8th, 1783,” EAI, no. 18198 (1783): 38–39, 7; excerpted in Cherry, God’s New Israel, 82–92. 36. Stiles, “United States Elevated,” 42–43. 37. James H. Smylie, “American Clergymen and the Constitution of the United States of America, 1781–1796” (ThD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1958), 33. 38. Garry Wills, Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 28.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 4 0 – 4 1

183

39. Reverend Winchester quoted in Smylie, “American Clergymen,” 342; Isaac Stearns to a Member of Congress (probably a Massachusetts member, perhaps Elbridge Gerry), August 12, 1789, DHFFC 16:1298. 40. Merrill Jensen, The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation, 1781–1789 (New York: Knopf, 1950), 99. See also Kenneth Silverman, A Cultural History of the American Revolution: Painting, Music, Literature, and the Theatre in the Colonies and the United States from the Treaty of Paris to the Inauguration of George Washington, 1763–1789 (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976), 484–536. 41. Timothy Dwight, “The Conquest of Canaan: A Poem in Eleven Books,” EAI, no. 18996; Dwight, The Conquest of Canaan: A Poem in Eleven Books (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1970), reprint of 1788 ed. See also, Silverman, Cultural History, 500–503; Smylie, “American Clergymen,” 30–38; William Alfred Bryan, George Washington in American Literature, 1775–1865 (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1952), 137–39. 42. Jensen, New Nation, 101. 43. Timothy Dwight to Noah Webster, June 6, 1788; printed in full in Theodore A. Zunder, “Noah Webster and the Conquest of Canaan,” American Literature 1, no. 2 (1929): 200–202. Like the player queen in Hamlet, Dwight doth protest too much since “most of Dwight’s contemporaries read the poem as an allegory of the Revolution, with Washington represented by Joshua.” Silverman, Cultural History, 501. 44. Dwight, “Conquest of Canaan,” front matter; Silverman, Cultural History, 500. 45. Joel Barlow, “The Vision of Columbus: A Poem in Nine Books,” EAI, no. 20220 (1787). For “great” Washington, see 169, 185, 188, and 194; “On the great chief his eyes in transport roll, And fame and Washington inspire his soul,” 169; “Immortal Washington,” 212. Bryan, George Washington, 138–39; Silverman, Cultural History, 519–36. 46. J. Franklin Jameson, The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1926), 77. 47. Silverman, Cultural History, 9. Silverman provides a discussion of the theory of western expansion of the arts and empire, and addresses the theory with regard to specific works when appropriate throughout his book. 48. Ibid. For a thorough examination of the theory of western progress and especially its influence on political economy in the early American Republic, see Drew R. McCoy, The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. 49. John Adams to Benjamin Rush, May 23, 1807, in Charles F. Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), 9:600. John Schutz and Douglass Adair suggested that Adams’s boyhood recollection was largely due to New Englanders’ worries about their boundary with Canada to the west and also to biblical prophesies about the westward expansion, as found in Genesis 28:14. John A. Schutz and Douglass Adair, eds., The Spur of Fame: Dialogues of John Adams and Benjamin Rush, 1805–1813 (San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1966), 97. More broadly, cultural reasons for

184

NOTES TO PAGES 4 1 –4 3

Adams’s recollection probably include: the Puritan idea that God intended a special destiny for New England retained a regional cultural viability; and even more to the point, the theory of the West and western expansion as the basis for civilization, growth, and progress was a common theme throughout the American colonies. Cherry, God’s New Israel; Harry S. Stout, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); McCoy, Elusive Republic; Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969), 3–10, 97– 107, published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, VA. 50. Cherry, God’s New Israel, 28. 51. The entire poem by George Berkeley can be found on a frontispiece in Silverman, Cultural History. 52. Observation by fellow classmate and friend James Madison, quoted in Silverman, Cultural History, 229. 53. Philip Morin Freneau and Hugh Henry Brackenridge, “A Poem, on the Rising Glory of America; Being an Exercise Delivered at the Public Commencement at Nassau-Hall, September 25, 1771,” EAI, no. 12398 (1771): 22, 27; Daniel Marder, ed. A Hugh Henry Brackenridge Reader, 1770–1815 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,1970), 56–59, 3–46. 54. William Smith, “An Oration, Delivered January 22, 1773, before the Patron, Vice-Presidents and Members of the American Philosophical Society, Held at Philadelphia, for Promoting Useful Knowledge,” EAI, no. 13022 (1773): 5; Silverman, Cultural History, 227–35, 491–95. 55. Ramsay, David, “The Oration of 1778,” in David Ramsay, 1749–1815: Selections from His Writings, ed. Robert L. Brunhouse, new ser., 55 ed., Transactions (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1965), 187–88. 56. David Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American Nationalism, 1776–1820 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 54, published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. Contested power and early national identity are also examined in Simon P. Newman, Parades and the Politics of the Street: Festive Culture in the Early American Republic, Early American Studies (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997); Jeffrey L. Pasley, “The Tyranny of Printers”: Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001); and Jeffrey L. Pasley, Andrew W. Robertson, and David Waldstreicher, Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004). 57. Samuel Langdon, “The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States. A Sermon, Preached at Concord, in the State of New Hampshire; before the Honorable General Court at the Annual Election, June 5, 1788,” EAI, no. 21192 (1788): 31, 35; excerpted in Cherry, God’s New Israel, 93–105. 58. “Thoughts on American Genius,” American Magazine, March 1787, APS; For the poem, see “The Prospect of America,” American Museum, May 1787, APS; For the ode, see “Poet’s Corner,” Impartial Gazetteer, and Saturday Evening Post, no. 11, APS, Series 0.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 4 3 – 4 7

185

59. Benjamin West, Bickerstaff’s Boston Almanack, or Federal Calendar, for 1789, EAI, no. 21592 (1788). Also attributed to Osgood Carleton. 60. Smylie, “American Clergymen,” 352. 61. Thomas B. Wait to George Thatcher, November 22, 1787, DHROC 4:295. 62. After the initial public outcry, Washington distanced himself from the Society of the Cincinnati (see chapter 1), threatening to stop being the society’s president and calling for the abolition of the “ ‘heredity part in all its connexions, absolutely’ ” of membership stipulations. Yet when a few state chapters refused, he remained the society’s nominal president, although he attended no meetings, until the day he died. John E. Ferling, The First of Men: A Life of George Washington (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988), 348. 63. McConville, The King’s Three Faces, 68. 64. Newman, Parades and Politics, 59. 65. Pennsylvania Packet, March 2, 1782. 66. Connecticut Courant, March 11, 1783. 67. Independent Gazetteer, March 4, 1783. 68. Massachusetts Spy, February 20, 1983. 69. Independent Gazetteer, May 18, 1782. 70. In addition to sources already cited, see Massachusetts Spy, June 20, 1782; Freeman’s Journal, July 17, 1782; Pennsylvania Packet, July 18 and August 1, 1782; Freeman’s Journal, July 31, 1782; Pennsylvania Evening Post, September 2, 1782. 71. New-Jersey Gazette, May 29, 1782; Pennsylvania Packet, July 6, 1782. 72. New-Jersey Gazette, June 12, 1782. 73. Freeman’s Journal, July 17 and 31, 1782. 74. Independent Gazetteer, July 20, 1782. 75. Kenneth R. Bowling, Peter Charles L’Enfant:Vision, Honor, and Male Friendship in the Early American Republic (Washington, DC: George Washington University, 2002), 5. 76. Pennsylvania Packet, February 26, 1784. For examples of additional birthday celebration notices, see Political Intelligencer, February 17, 1784; Pennsylvania Packet, March 30, 1784. 77. Independent Gazette, February 12, 1784 (also appeared in: American Herald, February 23, 1784; Norwich Packet, March 4, 1784; Vermont Gazette, March 20, 1784). In addition to the “Whig” club’s song, a rather insipid poem to Washington’s birth appeared in a New Jersey paper that year, but does not appear to have been widely reprinted. See Political Intelligencer, March 16, 1784. 78. Examples include: New-Hampshire Gazette, February 18, 1786; Political Intelligencer, March 15, 1786; Pennsylvania Packet, March 31, 1786; Independent Journal, March 7, 1787; City Gazette, March 17, 1788. 79. Charleston Evening Gazette, February 21, 1786. 80. “The Following ODE, on the Birth-day of His Excellency GENERAL WASHINGTON, celebrated by the ADOPTED SONS, at the Pennsylvania CoffeeHouse in Philadelphia, was composed by a Member of That Society,” EAI, no. 19650 (1786). 81. Independent Gazetteer, March 5, 1789. 82. Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes, 120.

186

NOTES TO PAGES 4 7 –4 8

83. Robert N. Bellah, “Civil Religion in America,” Daedalus 96, no. 1 (1967): 1–21, quote on 1. For examinations of the similarly named “public religion” and “theology of the republic,” see John F. Wilson, Public Religion in American Culture (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979); and Sidney E. Mead, “The Theology of the Republic and the Orthodox Mind,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 44, no. 1 (1976): 105–13. The response to Bellah’s article, which he intended as a thought piece, surprised the author by the passionate criticism, misunderstanding, and attention it engendered over the next twenty years. Although civil religion historiography declined by the late 1980s, its perspective for the early Republic and my project remains relevant. See James A. Mathisen, “Twenty Years after Bellah: Whatever Happened to American Civil Religion?” Sociological Analysis 50, no. 2 (1989): 129–46; Robert N. Bellah, “Comment: Twenty Years after Bellah: Whatever Happened to American Civil Religion?” Sociological Analysis 50, no. 2 (1989): 147. 84. Albanese, Sons of the Fathers, 6. 85. Ibid., 146, 45. Although Albanese approaches the broad history of religion and religious traditions in America from a perspective that emphasizes contact from one person or group to another, she uses the concept of “civil religion” when discussing the early Republic. See also Catherine L. Albanese, America: Religions and Religion, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2006), 265–71. 86. “The Entry” is described in detail in John Armstrong Jr. to Horatio Gates, April 7, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:214–15. In another telling example, during Washington’s presidential tour of New England in November 1789, Reverend Joseph Buckminster, pastor of the First Church in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, preached a bold sermon that nearly crossed the line. He referred to Washington as both the “saviour” and “deliverer of their country,” who had sacrificed “his ease to bless his brethren.” Buckminster then spoke of Jesus Christ, “The Savior of the World.” he drew the parallel between Washington and Jesus “in order to press home the higher allegiance owed to the latter,” Buckminster found inspiration in both saviors. Joseph Buckminster, “A Discourse, Delivered at Portsmouth, New-Hampshire, November 1st, 1789. On Occasion of the President of the United States Honoring That Capital with a Visit,” EAI, no. 21718 (1789): 8, 16–17; Smylie, “American Clergymen,” 343. 87. Street cartoons were often libelous, and few wanted to attack Washington as harshly as a political cartoon could. The Whitney Museum’s curator, William Murrell, once observed: “Cartoons in which George Washington figures are for some obscure reason exceedingly rare. It is not at all probable that he was spared, either for his military ser vices or the prominence of his office. Indeed, the opposition newspapers of the time were anything but complimentary. It is probable that all cartoons reflecting on him have long since been destroyed by some of our too ardent patriots.” Murrell, A History of American Graphic Humor, 1:32–34. In all likelihood, some of those ardent patriots were historians. 88. John Armstrong Jr. to Horatio Gates, April 7, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:214–15; Charles Royster, A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775–1783 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 334–38, published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture,

NOT ES TO PA G ES 4 8 – 4 9

187

Williamsburg, VA; James Thomas Flexner, George Washington in the American Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), 487–508. 89. Quite a bit of confusion has attached to reports of when “The Entry” appeared. No one, however, seems to have realized that this cartoon appeared in conjunction with Palm Sunday (April 5, 1789). Given the caricature’s imagery and the likelihood that Lee’s arrival in New York was known, I think it plausible that the “The Entry” appeared over the Palm Sunday weekend (rather than two days later, when Armstrong wrote the letter, for example), as its creator anticipated the certainty of a quorum, a vote count, and Washington’s election as president. Frank Weitenkampf ’s exhaustive, nearly infallible, and often-used reference book of American political cartoons quotes a Benson Lossing history from 1877 that incorrectly states that the caricature appeared the day after Washington’s arrival in New York City (April 23, 1789). See Frank Weitenkampf, Political Caricature in the United States in Separately Published Cartoons: An Annotated List (New York: New York Public Library, 1953), 11; Benson J. Lossing, Our Country: A Household History of the United States for All Readers, from the Discovery of America to the Present Time, 2 vols. (New York: Amies, 1877), 2:1123. Stephen Hess has gotten the timing of “The Entry” wrong twice, both times dating it to “shortly after” Washington’s inauguration (April 30, 1789). See Stephen Hess and Milton Kaplan, The Ungentlemanly Art: A History of American Political Cartoons (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 61; Stephen Hess and Sandy Northrop, Drawn and Quartered: The History of American Political Cartoons (Montgomery, AL: Elliott and Clark, 1996), 36. William Murrell included no date at all; see Murrell, A History of American Graphic Humor, 1:34. In 1839, in a history that Lossing should have paid more attention to, William Dunlap got it right. See Dunlap, History of the New Netherlands, Province of New York, and State of New York, 2 vols. (New York: Burt Franklin, 1839; reprinted 1970), 2:234–35. More recently, Charlene Bickford and Kenneth Bowling tie distribution of the cartoon to the date of Armstrong’s letter (April 7, 1789). They state: “On the day after his election [April 7], two weeks before his triumphal entrance into New York City, a cartoon entitled “The Entry” was hawked on the streets of the capital.” See Charlene Bangs Bickford and Kenneth R. Bowling, Birth of the Nation: The First Federal Congress, 1789–1791 (Lanham, MD: Madison House, 1989), 25. 90. James H. Barnett, “The Easter Festival: A Study in Cultural Change,” American Sociological Review 14, no. 1 (1949): 62–70; Mary C. Erler, “Palm Sunday Prophets and Processions and Eucharistic Controversy,” Renaissance Quarterly 48, no. 1 (1995): 58–81; Carla Gardina Pestana, “The Quaker Executions as Myth and History,” Journal of American History 80, no. 2 (1993): 441–69, quote at 42. Two graphics of the early New York City skyline show the variety of churches in the city. See Hugh Gaine, “Prospect of the City of New-York” (woodcut), New York Almanac, 1771, copyprint, the American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, MA; and I. Carwithan, “A View of Fort George with the City of New York” (engraving), ca. 1730, Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. 91. Armstrong to Gates, April 7, 1789.

188

NOTES TO PAGES 4 9 –5 2

92. Lossing, Our Country, 2:1123. Since Armstrong did not mention the devil (although he may have been alluding to the devil’s placement in the cartoon with his “disloyal and profane” comment), Lossing either must have seen the image himself or learned about it some other way. 93. Armstrong to Gates, April 7, 1789. The title controversy officially began two weeks later, on April 23, when Senator Richard Henry Lee moved to form a joint congressional committee to consider the question of formal titles for president and vice president (Bickford and Bowling, Birth of the Nation, 26). 94. William Paterson to Euphemia Paterson, April 23, 1789, and Theodorick Bland to St. George Tucker, April 15, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:334, 265. 95. William Davies to Governor Beverly Randolph, April 23, 1789; Henry Wynkoop to Reading Beatty, April 23, 1789; and William Maclay to Benjamin Rush, April 23, 1789; DHFFC-Correspondence, 324, 331, 325. 96. Armstrong to Gates, April 7, 1789; Bellah, “Civil Religion in America,” 1. 97. See Jayne Elisabeth Archer, Elizabeth Goldring, and Sarah Knight, eds., The Progresses, Pageants, and Entertainments of Queen Elizabeth I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 98. Stanley M. Elkins and Eric L. McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 45. 99. James Thomas Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation, 1783–1793 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), 174. See also Richard B. Bernstein, “George Washington’s Inaugural Trip to New York,” in Well Begun: Chronicles of the Early National Period, ed. Stephen L. Schechter and Richard B. Bernstein (Albany: New York State Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 1989), 39–43. 100. “Account of the Preparations at Gray’s Ferry, on the River Schuylkill, and of the Reception of General Washington There,” Columbian Magazine, May 1789, APS; Gazette of the United States, April 22–25, 1789; Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington: A Biography, 7 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1948), 6:171–74. 101. Independent Gazetteer, April 21, 1789, quoted and discussed in Freeman, George Washington, 6:183. The chapter of Revelation refers to St. John’s vision of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. One scholar who has considered the various influences behind the colors associated with the four horsemen says: “The crowned first horseman rides a white horse, a color usually associated with a royal steed.” See Helmut Nickel, “And Behold, a White Horse . . . Observations on the Colors of the Horses of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 12 (1977): 179–83. 102. “Account of the Manner of Receiving, at Trenton, His Excellency George Washington,” Colombian Magazine, May 1789, APS; Gazette of the United States, April 25–29, 1789; Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation, 173–81; Freeman, George Washington, 6:167–78. Freeman quotes the entire song on 175–76. 103. Samuel Low, “Ode, to Be Sung on the Arrival of the President of the United States,” EAI, no. 45505 (1789). See also Gazette of the United States, April 22–25, 1789; New York Daily Advertiser, April 24, 1789; New York Daily Gazette, April 25, 1789; New York Weekly Museum, April 25, 1789. 104. Elias Boudinot to Hannah Boudinot, April 24, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:337.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 5 2 – 5 8

189

105. Elias Boudinot to William Bradford Jr., April 24, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence, 15:340. 106. Fisher Ames to William Tudor, April 26, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence, 15:365; See also George Thatcher to Sarah Thatcher, April 26, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 15:365–67; Freeman, George Washington, 6:178–84. 107. Ebenezer Hazard to Jeremy Belknap, April 25, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:356–57. 108. Gazette of the United States, April 22–25, 1789 (also appeared in the NewJersey Journal, April 29, 1789; Pennsylvania Packet, May 2, 1789; Middlesex Gazette, May 2, 1789; and Georgia Gazette, May 14, 1789). 109. William Maclay to a Resident of Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:359. See also “tumultuous joy,” Maryland Gazette, May 5, 1789; DHFFC-Correspondence 15:375; “joy that pervades every breast,” from a letter “written at the time” by New York physician James Cogswell (1746–92) and published in Historical Magazine 4 (August 1860): 244, APS; DHFFE, 4:245. 110. George Thatcher to Sarah Thatcher, April 26, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:365–67. 111. Ibid. 112. Robert Withington, “The Early ‘Royal-Entry,’ ” PMLA 32, no. 4 (1917): 616–23, quotes on 16–17. 113. Carolyn A. Edie, “The Public Face of Royal Ritual: Sermons, Medals, and Civic Ceremony in Later Stuart Coronations,” Huntington Library Quarterly 53, no. 4 (1990): 311–36, quote on 11. See also Colley, Britons, 217–28; Colley, “The Apotheosis of George III.” 114. Gazette of the United States, April 22–25, 1789 (also appeared in the New Jersey Journal, April 29, 1789; Pennsylvania Packet, May 2, 1789; Middlesex Gazette, May 2, 1789; and Georgia Gazette, May 14, 1789). The article also refers to Washington as “the Saviour of his Country,” among other accolades. 115. Virginia Baptists General Committee to George Washington, May 8, 1789, in Series Letterbooks 2, Letterbook 38, p. 81, GWP. 116. Jared Mansfield to Samuel Peters, June 15, 1789, in Record Group 117, PEC. Smylie, “American Clergymen,” 345–53. 117. John McAuley Palmer, General Von Steuben (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1937), 371. 118. Elias Boudinot to George Washington, April 6, 1789, GWP, quoted in Kaminski and McCaughan, A Great and Good Man, 100. 119. Paine Wingate to [Hannah Veazie Wingate], June 14, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 16:780. 120. John Randolph of Roanoke to Thomas Tudor Tucker, December 13, 1813, quoted in William Cabell Bruce, John Randolph of Roanoke, 1773–1833, 2 vols. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1922), 1:74. 121. John Adams to Abigail Adams, October 26, 1777, AFP. 3. Protecting the Presidency

1. DHROC 13:41–542. On the identity of “An Old Whig,” Saul Cornell says that “this author and his essays were a collective effort of prominent members of

190

NOTES TO PAGES 5 8 –6 0

Pennsylvania’s Constitutionalist Party, including George Bryan, John Smilie, and James Hutchinson.” Saul Cornell, The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788–1828 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 85, published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. 2. “Cornelius,” Hampshire Chronicle, December 11 and 18, 1787, DHROC 4:415; Speech by Benjamin Gale, November 12, 1787, DHROC 3:426. Gale may not have given the speech. 3. Francis Kinlock to Thomas Boone, May 26, 1788, quoted in Jackson Turner Main, The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781–1788 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), 142, published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, VA. 4. DHROC 17:55. 5. Ibid., 2:138–42. Coxe’s “An American Citizen” essays received wide distribution. The first three were published in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer on September 26, 28, and 29, 1787. The fourth essay was published on or before October 21, 1787, in a broadside by David Hall and William Sellers, publishers of the Pennsylvania Gazette. Coxe defended the Constitution in upwards of thirty essays, written under various pseudonyms, over the next year (13:247). 6. “The Federalist No. 67,” in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, ed. Garry Wills (New York: Bantam Books, 1982), 341. The other printed edition of the Federalist papers that I used is Clinton Rossiter, ed., The Federalist Papers—Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay (New York: Penguin, 1961). Another excellent source is through the Library of Congress website at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html. The Federalist essays were published in two volumes, in March and May 1788, respectively, by John and Archibald McLean. The McLean numbering is slightly different from the newspaper numbering because the publishers separated one essay into two and took a few other liberties. As a result, the McLean numberings, which are usually used, are one number higher than the newspaper numberings for essay nos. 36–77. DHROC 13:490. Thus, this first of the Hamilton/Publius essays on the presidency appeared as “The Federalist, No. 66, To the People of the State of New-York,” New York Packet, March 11, 1788. 7. “The Federalist No. 69” and “The Federalist No. 70,” in Wills, Federalist Papers, 348, 354. 8. City Gazette, April 1 and 2, 1788. 9. Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1996), 273. 10. Rakove, Original Meanings, 203–87; Cornell, Other Founders, 19–106; Saul Cornell, “Aristocracy Assailed: The Ideology of Backcountry Anti-Federalism,” Journal of American History 76, no. 4 (1990): 1148–72; John P. Kaminski and Richard Leffler, eds., Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate over the Ratification of the Constitution, 1st ed. (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1989), ix–x, 3–119, published for the Center for the Study of the American Constitution; Main, Antifederalists, ix–20; Cecelia M. Kenyon, ed. The Antifederalists (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966), xlix–xciv; Woody Holton, Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007), 9–10; Gary J. Schmitt and Robert H.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 6 0 – 6 2

191

Webking, “Revolutionaries, Antifederalists, and Federalists: Comments on Gordon Wood’s Understanding of the American Founding,” Political Science Reviewer 9 (1979): 195–229. 11. Rakove, Original Meanings, 272; DHROC 2:212. 12. DHROC 14:187–88; Richard Henry Lee to Edmund Randolph, October 16, 1787, DHROC 8:62. 13. For use of the term “bottoming,” see, Federal Farmer II, DHROC 14:27, and Richard Henry Lee’s proposed amendments, which circulated in newspapers and private correspondence, DHROC 8:65. See also Kenneth R. Bowling, “A Tub to the Whale: The Founding Fathers and Adoption of the Federal Bill of Rights,” Journal of the Early Republic 8 (Fall 1988): 1. 14. “Observations Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government Proposed by the Late Convention; and to Several Essential and Necessary Alterations to It, in a Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican,” DHROC 14:14–54, 17:265–376, quote at 279. This widely distributed Antifederalist pamphlet is usually referred to as “Letters from a Federal Farmer.” At the time, some Massachusetts newspapers attributed unsubstantiated authorship to Virginian Richard Henry Lee. For years, historians thought Lee might be the author, but without real evidence. More recently, New York merchant Melanctin Smith has been considered the author. DHROC 14:14–18; Cornell, Other Founders, 88n11. Based on my reading of his letters and other documents and an assessment of writing style and main issues in them, I agree that Lee was not “Federal Farmer.” I also agree that Smith’s writing style is more similar to that of “Federal Farmer” than Lee’s; however, the verified identity of “Federal Farmer” remains uncertain, with Smith a likely candidate. 15. Farrand: Records, 2:657. 16. DHROC 17:280. 17. Cornell, Other Founders, 30, 97; Kaminski and Leffler, Federalists and Antifederalists, x, 67–68. 18. DHROC 17:280 (italics added). 19. Cornell, Other Founders, 97. Cornell, “Aristocracy Assailed,” 1159. See also Rakove, Original Meanings, 210–43. 20. Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969), 407, published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, VA. 21. Cornell, Other Founders, 80. 22. Hugh Ledlie to John Lamb, January 15, 1788, DHROC 3:575. Main, Antifederalists, 109, 164, 199. In eighteenth-century America, “slush” usually meant soft mud or mire. Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (San Francisco, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education, facsimile ed., 1967). 23. Although none of the following address the aristocracy of the Senate or House in relation to the title controversy, their discussions have informed my view: Cornell, “Aristocracy Assailed”; Cornell, Other Founders; Gary J. Kornblith and John M. Murrin, “The Making and Unmaking of an American Ruling Class,” in Beyond the American Revolution: Explorations in the History of American Radicalism, ed. Alfred F. Young (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1993), 27–79; Main,

192

NOTES TO PAGES 6 2 –6 7

Antifederalists; Rakove, Original Meanings; Kaminski and Leffler, Federalists and Antifederalists. 24. Farrand: Records, 2:637–40, italics added. See also the helpful discussion of “the dissenters” (Mason, Randolph, and Gerry) and Mason’s perspective, in particular, in Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010), 39–49. 25. DHROC 3:635. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid., 2:165, 14:57. 28. Ibid., 2:142–44. Coxe’s second essay appeared on September 28, 1787. 29. “The Federalist No. 69,” in Wills, Federalist Papers, 354. 30. “The Federalist No. 73,” in Wills, Federalist Papers, 372–73. 31. “The Federalist No. 77,” in Wills, Federalist Papers, 388–90. Hamilton also took the opportunity to twist the aristocratic cabal argument in his favor—to advocate for the energetic executive he preferred and against any sort of privy council: “Every mere council of appointment, however constituted, will be a conclave in which cabal and intrigue will have their full scope.” 32. “The Federalist No. 64,” in Wills, Federalist Papers, 330. 33. DHFFE 1:ix. 34. Bowling, “Tub to the Whale,” 1–3. 35. Cornell, Other Founders, 170–218. 36. Cornell, Other Founders, 157; “Biographies of Members of the First Federal Congress,” in DHFFC 14:489–932. Cornell counts the number of former Antifederalists as fourteen. However, only thirteen served at the same time. When a former Antifederalist House member (Theodorick Bland of Virginia) died in 1790, another former Antifederalist (William Giles) replaced him, thus bringing the count to fourteen. In the Senate, when Grayson died in 1790, former Antifederalist James Monroe served the rest of his term. Written by William diGiacomantonio, the DHFFC biographical summaries provide valuable sketches of members and include information on the location of archival resources. See also Kenneth R. Bowling, “Politics in the First Congress, 1789–1791” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1968). 37. Richard Henry Lee to William Cabell, October 15, 1788, Ballagh, 2:479–80. 38. Richard Henry Lee to John Jones, October 15, 1788, Ballagh, 2:478–79. See also Richard Henry Lee to Theodore Bland, October 15, 1788, Ballagh, 2:477–78. 39. DHROC 8:59–61; George Washington to James Madison, December 7, 1787, DHROC 8:226. See also Richard Henry Lee to General George Washington, October 11, 1787, Ballagh, 2:448–50. 40. Richard Henry Lee to Doctor William Shippen Jr., October 2, 1787; Richard Henry Lee to George Mason, October 1, 1787; Richard Henry Lee to Samuel Adams, October 5, 1787, Ballagh, 2:441, 438, 445–46. 41. Richard Henry Lee to Edmund Randolph, October 16, 1787, DHROC 8:62, 65–67. 42. Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause:The American Revolution, 1763–1789 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 331. See also Paul C. Nagel, The Lees

NOT ES TO PA G ES 6 7 – 6 9

193

of Virginia: Seven Generations of an American Family (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 3–5, 98–104; J. Kent McGaughy, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia: A Portrait of an American Revolutionary (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004), 108–17. 43. George W. Carey, ed. The Political Writings of John Adams (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000), 105–303. 44. Ibid.; Wills, Federalist Papers, vii–xxiv. 45. Margaret Lowther Page. Journal and Poems of Margaret Lowther Page, Special Collections Research Center, Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Although it largely contains the writings of Margaret Lowther Page, the journal includes poems by her husband John Page, as well as some by St. George Tucker and Thomas Tudor Tucker. A notation in the journal dates the Page poem quoted here as June 30, 1787, and mentions that it appeared in the Virginia Independent Chronicle (no date given). The journal also contains two more John Page poems criticizing both Adams (in one, by name) and his ideas in Defence. Initially, Page was an opponent of the Constitution. However, by March 1788 (several months before Virginia ratified the Constitution), Page favored ratification. DHFFC 14:918. 46. For examinations of Adams’s temperament, see Joseph J. Ellis, Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams (New York: Norton, 2001); John E. Ferling, John Adams: A Life (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992); Peter Shaw, The Character of John Adams (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976), published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA; and Gilbert Chinard, Honest John Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, 1933). Douglass Adair argued that the Founders’ desire for fame and posterity’s judgment motivated them to act for the public good, but Adams seemed of two minds about his aspirations. Throughout his life, he fretted about fame and his attachment to it and remained ambivalent toward his ambitions and those of others. Trevor Colbourn, ed. Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair, rev. ed. (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund,1998). 47. Wood, Creation, 567–92; Cornell, “Aristocracy Assailed,” 1158–59; Cornell, Other Founders, 100; Shaw, Character of John Adams, 207–23; John R. Howe, The Changing Political Thought of John Adams (Princeton: NJ, Princeton University Press, 1966); Robert Roswell Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959), 1:263–84; Darren Staloff, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson: The Politics of Enlightenment and the American Founding (New York: Hill and Wang, 2005), 192–94. See also Centinel I, DHROC 2:158–62. 48. John Armstrong Jr. to Horatio Gates, April 7, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:214–15. 49. Wood, Creation, 567–69, 587–88; David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 406 (for “woefully out of step . . .”) 50. DHROC 14:57. 51. John Adams to William Tudor, May 3, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:435–36. 52. John Adams to Benjamin Lincoln, May 8, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:478–79. See also Richard Alan Ryerson, “ ‘Like a Hare before the Hunters’:

194

NOTES TO PAGES 6 9 –7 3

John Adams and the Idea of Republican Monarchy,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 3rd ser., 107 (1995): 16–29. 53. John Adams to Benjamin Lincoln, May 8, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:478–79. 54. John Adams to Roger Sherman, July 18, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1063. 55. John Adams to Benjamin Lincoln, May 8, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:479. 56. Nagel, Lees of Virginia, 104–12; Ferling, John Adams: A Life, 207–8; Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 404–10; Jack P. Greene and J. R. Pole, A Companion to the American Revolution (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000), 352–61; Edmund Sears Morgan, Benjamin Franklin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 242–70; Jack N. Rakove, The Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress (New York: Knopf, 1979), 249–74; Stacy Schiff, A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France, and the Birth of America (New York: Henry Holt, 2005), 94–204. 57. John Adams Autobiography, pt. 2, April 21, 1778, AFP. 58. Richard Henry Lee to John Adams, October 8, 1779, Ballagh, 2:155. This was not the only time Richard Henry Lee had felt the censure of Virginia’s political elites. In the 1760s, his handling of the exposure of a complex financial scheme involving Virginia Speaker John Robinson antagonized many in the state’s political circles and opened him up to charges of ambition, indelicacy, and damaging the public’s faith in their government. Other examples exist, as well, especially during the 1760s. Timothy Breen, Tobacco Culture:The Mentality of the Great Tidewater Planters on the Eve of Revolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 103–6; David John Mays, Edmund Pendleton, 1721–1803: A Biography, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952), 1:181–188; McGaughy, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, 80–87; Nagel, Lees of Virginia, 77–85. 59. James Madison to Edmund Randolph, May 10, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:503. 60. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 23, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:619. 61. “The Federalist No. 39,” in Wills, Federalist Papers, 191. 62. James Madison to Edmund Randolph, May 31, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:665. 63. “The Federalist No. 63,” in Wills, Federalist Papers, 318–25. 64. “The Federalist No. 57,” in Wills, Federalist Papers, 289. 65. Ibid., 289–90. 66. James Madison to Edmund Pendleton, June 21, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:829. 67. Ibid. 68. “The Federalist No. 39,” in Wills, Federalist Papers, 190. 69. DHFFC-WMD, 9:xi–xx, 431–41; DHFFC 14:761–66. Maclay received all but one vote. 70. DHFFC-WMD, 9:8–9.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 7 3 – 7 9

195

71. DHFFC 14:763. 72. DHFFC-WMD, 9:8–9. 73. DHFFC-WMD, 9:28. 74. DHFFC-WMD, 9:xi–xiv. The titles debate began in the Senate the day before the first surviving entry in Maclay’s diary. He probably started his diary a day earlier, but those pages are missing. See also Andy Trees, “The Diary of William Maclay and Political Manners in the First Congress,” Pennsylvania History 69, no. 2 (2002). 75. Maier, Ratification, ix. 76. Cornell, Other Founders, 158. 77. Based on “Biographies of Members of the First Federal Congress,” DHFFC 14:489–932. Giles filled the seat vacated by the death of Theodorick Bland (thus raising the number of men who actually filled the House’s constitutionally mandated sixty-five seats to sixty-six). 78. Joanne B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001), 1–6. The disappointed comment about Congress not being made up of the expected “demi-gods” came from Representative Fisher Ames of Massachusetts. Fisher Ames to George R. Minot, May 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:636. Ames was comparing the make-up of the new Congress to that of the Continental Congress. 79. “Real Farmer,” Hampshire Chronicle, October 22, 1788, DHFFE 1:468–69. Also cited and discussed in Cornell, Other Founders, 152. 80. Abigail Adams to John Adams, November 16, 1788, AFP. 4. Debating a “Doubtful Power”

1. Charlene Bangs Bickford and Kenneth R. Bowling, Birth of the Nation: The First Federal Congress, 1789–1791 (Lanham, MD: Madison House, 1989), 9–16. 2. [Eleanor-Francois-Elie] Comte de Moustier to [Armand-Marc] Comte de Montmorin, February 2, 1789, DHFFC—Correspondence 15:223n. 3. Independent Chronicle, February 5, 1789. 4. William Bradford Jr. to Elias Boudinot, April 8, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:223. 5. John Armstrong Jr. to Horatio Gates, April 7, 1789, and Peter Muhlenberg to Benjamin Rush, April 20, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:214, 300–301. 6. DHFFC-WMD 9:10, 28. 7. Lance Banning, The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), 275. 8. Bickford and Bowling, Birth of the Nation, 28; DHFFC 1:45, 8:699–700. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Farrand: Records, 2:657. See discussion in chapter 1. 9. Federal Gazette, March 18, 1789 (also appeared in the Pennsylvania Mercury, March 19, 1789; Columbian Herald, March 30, 1789; New York Journal, April 2, 1789; Independent Chronicle, April 2, 1789; New-Hampshire Gazette, April 8, 1789; Cumberland Gazette, April 9, 1789; United States Chronicle, April 9, 1789; and Augusta

196

NOTES TO PAGES 8 0 –8 1

Chronicle, April 25, 1789). For a few additional examples of election and vote count predictions, see the New York Daily Gazette, February 12, 1789; New Hampshire Gazette, March 2, 1789; Cumberland Gazette, March 5, 1789; and Independent Chronicle, March 5 and April 2, 1789. 10. DHFFC 1:7–12; 3:9–11, 18; 8:698–99, 712–13; 10:lxi. For some examples of vote count coverage, see the New York Daily Advertiser, April 7, 1789, and New York Weekly Museum, April 11, 1789; the Boston Gazette, Connecticut Courant, Independent Gazetteer, Albany Journal, and American Mercury, April 13, 1789; and the New Hampshire Spy, Pennsylvania Mercury, and Salem Mercury, April 14, 1789. For examples of widespread anticipation of Washington’s arrival in New York, see the New York Daily Advertiser, April 1, 1789; New York Packet, April 3, 1789; and Middlesex Gazette, April 4, 1789; the Federal Gazette, New-Hampshire Gazette, and New-Jersey Journal, April 8, 1789; the New-Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine and United States Chronicle, April 9, 1789; Connecticut Gazette, April 10, 1789; and Independent Gazetteer, April 11, 1789. 11. John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 22, 1789, AFP. See also John Adams to Abigail Adams, May 13 and 14, 1789, AFP. 12. DHFFC 1:16–17, 8:712; DHFFC-WMD 9:167–68. 13. Thomas Lee Shippen to Dr. William Shippen, March 25, [1785], Shippen Family Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. 14. Sarah Robinson to Kitty F. Wistar, April 30, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:286n. 15. Patricia Brady, Martha Washington: An American Life (New York: Viking Penguin, 2005), 3. According to the Gazette of the United States, when the House considered its bill approving compensation for the president and vice president on August 3, 1789, “on motion of Mr. [William] Smith (of S.C.) a clause was added to the bill, by which The President is to have the use of furniture and other effects, now in his possession, belonging to the United States.” The bill approving executive compensation was passed by the House and sent to the Senate on August 4, 1789. The Senate passed the bill with amendments on September 7, 1789. After joint negotiations on some of the amendments, the Compensation Act passed in the House on September 24, 1789. Gazette of the United States, August 5, 1789; DHFFC 1:110, 114, 156, 198; 3:121, 131, 195, 169–70; 4:480–85. 16. Warrant, March 2, 1790, Leo Hershkowitz Collection, Tamiment Library, New York University. The warrant for the sentry boxes was discovered recently by historian Leo Hershkowitz, Queens College, and is discussed in an unpublished manuscript: Leo Hershkowitz, “Sentry Boxes for George Washington, New York, 1789–90.” 17. Comte de Moustier, Description of the Inauguration, April 30, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:405. From an article written for the officially sponsored La Gazette de France et La Journal Politique. 18. Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York, 1784–1831 (New York, 1917), 1:446, quoted in Hershkowitz, “Sentry Boxes,” 11. See also, New York Daily Gazette, January 3 and 10, 1789; Hershkowitz, “Sentry Boxes,” 7–10; Kenneth R. Bowling, “New York City, Capital of the United States, 1785–1790,” in World of the Founders: New York Communities in the Federal Period, ed. Stephen L. Schechter and

NOT ES TO PA G ES 8 1 – 8 6

197

Wendel Tripp (Albany: New York State Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 1990), 1–23. 19. John Armstrong to Horatio Gates, April 7, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:214. For “his Highness,” see Massachusetts Spy, March 26, 1789 (also appeared in the Herald of Freedom, March 31, 1789; and New-Hampshire Recorder, April 3, 1789). 20. Massachusetts Centinel, March 4, 1789. Newspapers up and down the Atlantic Seaboard reprinted the title suggestions of “A Federalist.” The article also appeared in the Newport Herald, March 12, 1789; New York Daily Advertiser, March 14, 1789; New York Weekly Museum, March 14, 1789; New Hampshire Gazette, March 18, 1789; Federal Gazette, April 2, 1789; Georgia Gazette, April 2, 1789; and City Gazette, April, 23, 1789. When the New York Daily Advertiser announced the results of the vote count, it followed many of the suggestions of “A Federalist.” The article referred to “The Illustrious GEORGE WASHINGTON, Esquire” as president, and “his Excellency JOHN ADAMS, Esquire” as vice president; it also referred to “the Honorable the Congress of the United States” and “his Excellency John Langdon, Esq.” as president of the Senate for the purpose of counting the votes. New York Daily Advertiser, April 7, 1789. 21. Federal Gazette, April 7, 1789. See also Lambert Cadwalader to John Armstrong Jr., May 8, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:480. Of attitudes toward titles, Cadwalader observed: “As is usual on such Occasions, some are for high and sounding Titles, some for Titles of great mediocrity, and others for no Title at all—at least none beyond the naked one given in the Constitution namely ‘The President of the U. States.’ ” 22. New York Daily Gazette, April 1, 1789. 23. Ibid.; William Barton to George Washington, August 28, 1788, PGW: Confederation 6:476–78. See also chapter 1. 24. Federal Gazette, March 17, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Daily Gazette, March 23, 1789; New York Morning Post, March 23, 1789; Independent Chronicle, April 2, 1789; Middlesex Gazette, April 4, 1789; New-Hampshire Gazette, April 8, 1789; American Herald, April 9, 1789; Cumberland Gazette, April 9, 1789; and Herald of Freedom, June 9, 1789). This widely circulated opinion piece showed remarkable staying power. It resurfaced in the fall of 1791, in the American Museum and in Philadelphia’s Independent Gazetteer, and was entitled, “On Abuse of Titles of Distinction,” a heading first used by the Herald of Freedom when it reprinted the piece in 1789. American Museum, October 1791, APS; Independent Gazetteer, October 1, 1791. 25. Federal Gazette, April 16, 1789. 26. New York Daily Advertiser, April 6, 1789 (“glory”); New-Hampshire Gazette, April 15, 1789 (“troop”). 27. New York Daily Advertiser, April 21, 1789; DHFFC 8:699–70. 28. Gazette of the United States, April 18–22, 1789. 29. Alexander White to Horatio Gates, April 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:371–72. 30. DHFFC-WMD 9:5. 31. DHFFC 1:21–23, 8:714–16.

198

NOTES TO PAGES 8 6 –8 9

32. DHFFC 1:24. 33. DHFFC-WMD 9:4. 34. Ibid. 35. Motion for Committee on Titles and Administering of Oath, DHFFC 1:23–25, 8:718. The Senate committee was comprised of Adams’s allies: Lee was his longtime political friend and confidant; Izard and Adams had been in diplomatic ser vice in Paris at the same time; and Dalton had recently asked Adams to be his “political mentor.” James Hutson, “John Adams’ Title Campaign,” New England Quarterly 41, no. 1 (1968): 32. 36. Alexander White to Horatio Gates, April 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:371–72. 37. DHFFC 3:32, 10:276–85; Gazette of the United States, April 22–25, 1789. 38. Lloyd’s Notes, April 24, 1789, DHFFC 10:284. 39. Alexander White to Horatio Gates, April 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:371–72. 40. Lloyd’s Notes, April 24, 1789, DHFFC 10:284. 41. Alexander White to Horatio Gates, April 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:371–72. 42. DHFFC-WMD 9:19. See also “our House [of Representatives] are unanimously of Opinion that no other Titles shall be given to the Presidt. and Vice presidt. than what is expressed in the Constitution.” Frederick A. Muhlenberg to Benjamin Rush, May 8, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:483. The unanimity in the House against a lofty title indicated that Connecticut representative Roger Sherman had retreated from his earlier unofficial explorations of a title more exalted than “Excellency” for Washington ( John Armstrong Jr. to Horatio Gates, April 7, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:214). 43. Samuel A. Otis to Jonathan Dayton, April 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:371. 44. DHFFC-WMD 9:10. 45. Gazette of the United States, April 25–29, 1789. Part of this article appeared in the Massachusetts Spy, May 6, 1789, under a headline that read, “Of His Highness the President General of United Columbia.” The first paragraph first appeared in Philadelphia’s Federal Gazette, April 23, 1789. See also John P. Kaminski and Jill Adair McCaughan, A Great and Good Man: George Washington in the Eyes of His Contemporaries (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1989), 127–28. 46. “An ODE, Most respectfully inscribed to his EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON, on being chosen President of the United States,” excerpt from Maryland Journal, April 24, 1789 (also appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet, May 1, 1789; New York Daily Gazette, May 5, 1789; Virginia Centinel, May 13, 1789; and New Hampshire Spy, May 23, 1789). DHFFE 4:253–55. 47. Eliza Susan Morton Quincy Reminiscence, DHFFE 4:269. Eliza Quincy (d. 1850) was in her teens when she witnessed the inauguration from “the roof of the first house in Broad Street.” She married Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts, who served as one of the state’s representatives in Congress (1805–13). He later became mayor of Boston and president of Harvard. Eliza wrote her Memoir in 1821. DHFFE 4:268, 248. 48. DHFFE 4:266, 270; PGW: Presidential 2:152–58.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 8 9 – 9 0

199

49. William A. Duer, “Description of the Inauguration,” DHFFC-Correspondence 15:396 (“dense crowds”); Peter Allaire, “Occurrences from 19th May to 3rd June 1789,” New York, June 4, 1789 (“Mob”), DHFFC-Correspondence 16:703. 50. “Ceremonial for the Inauguration of the President, 29 April,” DHFFE 4:261–63. 51. “The committees of both houses of Congress, appointed to take order for conducting the ceremonial of the formal reception, and c. of the president of the United States . . . have agreed to the following order,” EAI, no. 45671 (1789). See also Gazette of the United States, April 29–May 2, 1789; New York Daily Advertiser, May 1, 1789; New York Daily Gazette, May 1, 1789; New York Packet, May 1, 1789; and New York Journal, May 7, 1789. 52. William A. Duer, “Description of the Inauguration,” DHFFC-Correspondence 15:396, 53. “From a Correspondent in New York,” Essex Journal, May 13, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:413. 54. Richard Bache to Sally Bache, May 1, 1789, DHFFE 4:269. For another reference to “Divine Ser vice”, see New York Daily Gazette, May 1, 1789. 55. John May to Abigail May, May 1, 1789, DHFFE 4:269–70. 56. “From a Correspondent in New York,” Essex Journal, May 13, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:413 (“amongst the crowd”); Ron Chernow, Washington, A Life (New York: Penguin, 2010), 570 (“throng of people,” quoting Tobias Lear). 57. Stuart Eric Leibiger, Founding Friendship: George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999), 73, 109. Henry Knox became the official secretary of war under the new constitutional government in September 1789, but he had been functioning in that capacity under the Confederation since 1785, and continued to do so until his September confirmation; Alexander Hamilton became treasury head in September, as well; Thomas Jefferson, minister to France under the Confederation, started as secretary of state in March 1790; John Jay had been superintendent of foreign affairs under the Confederation since 1785, was appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court in September 1789, and served in both capacities until Jefferson’s arrival. See Jack D. Warren Jr., “In the Shadow of Washington: John Adams as Vice President,” in John Adams and the Founding of the Republic, ed. Richard Alan Ryerson (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2001), 128; Forrest McDonald, The Presidency of George Washington (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1974), 27, 36–40, 45–46. 58. William Smith (South Carolina) to Edward Rutledge, August 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1267. During this period, Leibiger and others refer to Madison as Washington’s “prime minister,” although given Madison’s devotion to republican government and his opinion, stated in Federalist 39, that England was improperly called a republic, he might be ambivalent, at best, with the designation. See Leibiger, Founding Friendship, 97–123; Richard Labunski, James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 187, quoting Leibiger. 59. James Madison to Jared Sparks, May 30, 1827, in Herbert B. Adams, The Life and Writings of Jared Sparks, 2 vols. (Boston: H. O. Houghton, 1893), 2:211–13; PGW: Presidential 2:152–73.

200

NOTES TO PAGES 9 0 –9 3

60. Leibiger, Founding Friendship, 104. 61. Washington’s Inaugural Address, DHFFC 1:30–33, 3:40–43, 8:724–27; PGW: Presidential 2:173–77. 62. Fisher Ames to George R. Minot, May 3, 1789, and John Langdon to Governor John Pickering, May 2, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:438, 428. 63. DHFFC-WMD 9:13. 64. William Bingham to James Madison, April 25, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:352. 65. Gazette of the United States, May 23–27, 1789 (also appeared in the New-Jersey Journal, June 3, 1789; Herald of Freedom, June 5, 1789; and Pennsylvania Packet, June 13, 1789). 66. Herald of Freedom, May 12, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Daily Gazette, May 19, 1789; Gazette of the United States, May 20–23, 1789; United States Chronicle, May 21, 1789; and Pennsylvania Packet, May 22, 1789). See also “that spirit of piety, and moderation . . . will remain a record to posterity,” Massachusetts Centinel, June 13, 1789, and New-Hampshire Spy, June 16, 1789; and “his unbounded disinterestedness . . . the repeated call of his ‘fellow citizens,’ ” Providence Gazette, July 25, 1789; and Norwich Packet, July 31, 1789. 67. George Washington to James Madison, May 5, 1789, DHFFC 8:727–35. 68. The editors of the Papers of James Madison first made the often-repeated observation about Madison being “in dialogue with himself.” PJM 12:120–21. See also Leibiger, Founding Friendship, 110; Garry Wills, James Madison (New York: Henry Holt, 2002), 3–4. 69. See, for example: “The Senate . . . are now deliberating what title they shall give. The other House are entêtée [stubborn].” Arthur Lee to Francis Lightfoot Lee, May 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:490. In the letter, Lee posed a compromise title of “His excellent Highness, or his High Excellency,” but joked that “you Farmers” would resist “any new title.” 70. DHFFC 3:45–47, 8:730–32. 71. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:495. 72. Paine Wingate to Jeremy Belknap, May 12, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15: 536. See also: “In the debates respecting titles the house of Representatives were generally in opinion against giving any, the majority of the Senate were of opinion that they were justifiable by the Constitution and convenient; but were not disposed to be obstinate in the dispute.” Paine Wingate to Jeremy Belknap, July 6, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16: 969–70. 73. DHFFC 1:33, 38–39; 8:731–35. 74. Senate Resolution on Titles, and Senate Report on Titles, DHFFC 1:45; 8:733–34. 75. Senate Resolution on Titles, DHFFC 1:45, 8:734. 76. James Madison to Edmund Randolph, May 10, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:503. 77. New York Daily Advertiser, May 1, 1789 (“his Excellency”); New York Packet, May 1, 1789 (“ILLUSTRIOUS PRESIDENT”); Gazette of the United States, April 29–May 2, 1789 (“PRESIDENT”).

NOT ES TO PA G ES 9 4 – 1 0 1

201

78. Massachusetts Spy, May 6, 1789. Embellished the New York Daily Advertiser version of May 1, 1789. 79. New-Hampshire Recorder, May 14, 1789. The popular item on Washington’s broadcloth suit appeared in the New York Daily Advertiser, May 2, 1789, as a short addendum to its full account of the previous day. It appeared in other papers, but without the addition of “highness.” See, for example, Salem Mercury, May 12, 1789; Cumberland Gazette, May 14, 1789; and Vermont Journal, June 8, 1789. The NewHampshire Recorder also used “Highness” earlier (April 3, 1789), when it referred to Washington’s assured election as president and a week later (May 21, 1789), to introduce an article describing Trenton’s elaborate festivities for the traveling president-elect. 80. William Knox to Winthrop Sargent, March 16, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:70, 17:1826; Richard Bache to Sally Bache, May 1, 1789, DHFFE 4:269, 271. Sarah “Sally” Bache was the daughter of Benjamin and Deborah Franklin. 81. Lambert Cadwalader to John Armstrong Jr., May 8, 1789, and James Jackson to Anthony Wayne, May 10, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:480, 499–500. 82. Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, May 13, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 15:538. 83. Ibid., 541. 84. [Eleanor-Francois-Elie] Comte de Moustier, Description of the Inauguration, April 30, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:404–5. 85. DHFFC-WMD 9:16. 86. Ibid., 9:16–17. 87. Ibid., 9:17. 88. Hutson, “John Adams’ Title Campaign,” 37. 89. DHFFC-WMD 9:17. Cogitating on Adams’s political perspective, Maclay once mused, with as much confusion as understanding: “He is antifederal, but one of a very different turn from the general cast,” DHFFC-WMD 9:56. 90. DHFFC-WMD 9:39; William Maclay to Benjamin Rush, May 18, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:587. 91. DHFFC-WMD 9:24, 26. As reference librarian Lisa M. Dresner explains, “Full British statute citations before 1963 consist of the statute’s name (which may include a year), regnal year, chapter, and section. Late statures omit the regnal year.” Lisa M. Dresner, “Finding British Statutes, Bills, and Statutory Instruments” (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law Library, Reference Department, 2001), 3; Guy Holborn, Butterworths Legal Research Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 92. DHFFC-WMD 9:26–27. 93. Ibid., 9:27–28. 94. Ibid., 9:10, 28, italics added for emphasis to the word “Spirit.” It appears that Maclay rejected the congressional consent of titles allowed in Article I, Section 9 as it pertained to executive titles, and probably any title. 95. Ibid., 9:28–29. Lee, Ellsworth and Johnson were elected to this second titles committee. DHFFC 1:40. 96. DHFFC-WMD 9:29. 97. Ibid., 9:30–32.

202

NOTES TO PAGES 1 0 1 –1 0 4

98. Ibid., 9:19, 28, 33, 38. 99. The “odium of titles” is attributed to Virginia’s John Page, Lloyd’s Notes, May 11, 1789, DHFFC 10:582. See also New York Daily Advertiser, May 22, 1789, for Page’s poem “Jet-d’Eau of Honors,” where the term also appears. “Jet-d’Eau of Honors” is discussed in chapter 5. 100. DHFFC-WMD 9:37. For Maclay’s height, see DHFFC-WMD 9:432; for Wynkoop’s height, see DHFFC-Correspondence 15:301n. 101. Henry Wynkoop to Reading Beatty, May 8 and May 10, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 15:487–88, 504. 102. Gazette of the United States, May 9–13, 1789. Also found in, DHFFC 10:592–95. 103. Congressional Register (for May 11, 1789), July 30, 1789, DHFFC 10:599. 104. James Jackson to Anthony Wayne, May 10, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:500 (“militates with the Constitution”; Congressional Register (for May 11, 1789), July 30, 1789, DHFFC 10:599 (“umbrage”. See also Joint Committee Report on Titles, DHFFC 3:45, 8:730; Congressional Register (for May 11, 1789), July 30, 1789, DHFFC 10:602. 105. Peter Muhlenberg to Benjamin Rush, May 11, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:513–14. Muhlenberg also reported that “the Title now on the Carpet is—His elective Highness—Presidt. and Protector of The Rights and Liberties etc.” 106. Gazette of the United States, May 9–13, 1789, and Congressional Register (for May 11, 1789), July 30, 1789, DHFFC 10:593, 597. 107. James Jackson to Anthony Wayne, May 10, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:500. 108. Congressional Register (for May 11, 1789), July 30, 1789, DHFFC 10:600.. For more on the “passionate and populist” Jackson, see Kenneth R. Bowling, “The Federal Government and the Republican Court Move to Philadelphia, November 1790–March 1791,” in Neither Separate nor Equal: Congress in the 1790’s, ed. Kenneth R. Bowling and Donald R. Kennon (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2000), 11. 109. Lloyd’s Notes, May 11, 1789, DHFFC 10:582. 110. Ibid., 585 (“excellency”); Congressional Register (for May 11, 1789), July 30, 1789, DHFFC 10:598 (“President . . . cloathed with all the powers”). 111. Congressional Register (for May 11, 1789), July 30, 1789, DHFFC 10:598. Unlike Madison and his dismissal of any power titles could confer, many representatives had a “fear of precedents, which may be innocent with him [Washington], but pernicious in future.” James Jackson to Anthony Wayne, May 10, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 15:500. See also Lambert Cadwalader to John Armstrong Jr., May 8, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:480. 112. DHFFC 10:598. 113. Gazette of the United States, May 9–13, 1789, and Congressional Register (for May 11, 1789), July 30, 1789, DHFFC 10:594, 601. A short opinion piece in the Independent Gazetteer ( June 13, 1789) took exception to Clymer’s assertion that Americans favored titles, with a dig at Clymer that conceded a penchant for titles may be the case “with the high flyers of his circle.” 114. Leibiger, Founding Friendship, 111. 115. Gazette of the United States, May 9–13, 1789, DHFFC 10:594.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 0 4 – 1 0 8

203

116. Federal Gazette, May 11, 1789. Extensively reprinted in the New York Journal, May 21, 1789; Massachusetts Centinel, May 23, 1789; Federal Herald, May 25, 1789; Boston Gazette, May 25, 1789; American Herald, May 28, 1789; New Hampshire Gazette, May 28, 1789; Cumberland Gazette, May 29, 1789; New Hampshire Recorder, June 4, 1789; and State Gazette of North Carolina, June 11, 1789. 117. New York Daily Gazette, May 12, 1789. 118. Independent Gazetteer, May 16, 1789 (letter extract dated May 13); DHFFCCorrespondence 15:541–42. 119. New York Daily Advertiser, May 14, 1789 (also appeared in the Gazette of the United States, May 13–16, 1789; New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine, May 21, 1789; and Massachusetts Centinel, May 23, 1789). I have established the identity of the article’s anonymous author “A. L.” as Robert Livingston (chancellor of New York in 1789) based on a comparison of the piece with his 1789 draft, “On the Proper Way to Address the President of the United States,” in Robert Livingston Papers, New York Historical Society. Earlier in the month and perhaps as a result of a conversation with the president, Livingston also drafted, but probably did not send, a letter to Washington containing his thoughts on “the etiquette which would be observed by the President of the United States.” Robert R. Livingston to George Washington [incomplete and probably unsent], May 2, 1789, PGW: Presidential 2:192–96, quote at 192. 120. Livingston, “On the Proper Way to Address the President.” See also Alfred F. Young, The Democratic Republicans of New York: The Origins, 1763–1797 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1967), 155. 121. Gazette of the United States, May 13–16, 1789. 122. DHFFC-WMD 9:37–39. On “affectation of simplicity,” see Joanne B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor, National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001), 42. See also, “The Senate is in favour of calling the President His Highness the Prest. and Protector of the Liberties of America—or nearly that.” Fisher Ames to John Lowell, May 11, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:506. 123. DHFFC-WMD 9:38–39. Maclay reported that the vote to eliminate the preamble was 10 opposed, 8 in favor. On the vote to approve the resolution as proposed, Maclay wrote that only he, Charles Carroll, and John Henry of Maryland voted against it. 124. Ibid., 9:35–36. 125. DHFFC 1:45, italics added for emphasis. For initial newspaper reports of the Senate’s title resolution and Madison as the House member who reported it, see the New York Daily Advertiser, May 15, 1789; Gazette of the United States, May 13–16, 1789; New York Packet, May 16, 1789; and New York Journal, May 21, 1789. 126. DHFFC-WMD 9:37. 127. DHFFC-WMD 9:25, 40, 19. 128. James Sullivan to Elbridge Gerry, July 31, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1189. 129. Lambert Cadwalader to John Armstrong Jr., May 8, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 15:480. 130. John Adams to William Tudor, May 3, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:435–36.

204

NOTES TO PAGES 1 0 8 –1 1 2

131. John Adams to Jabez Bowen, June 26, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:859 (“Highness not high enough”); John Adams to William Tudor, June 28, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:871 (“Majesty”). See also John Adams to Benjamin Rush, July 24, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1125 (“His Majesty, the President”). 132. Ralph Izard to Edward Rutledge, May 16, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:569. 133. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 23, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:619. “The italicized words were written in code by Madison and decoded between the lines by Jefferson.” DHFFC-Correspondence 15:619. For additional criticism of Lee’s position on titles, see James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:638–39. 134. DHFFC-WMD 9:39. See also, “I sincerely hope It [titles] never will again be blown up so as to kindle the fire of Contention.” William Maclay to Tench Coxe, May 16, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:569. 135. Lambert Cadwalader to John Armstrong Jr., May 8, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 15:480. 136. DHFFC 1:269–70. 137. James Madison to William Short, April 6, 1790, PJM 13:140; Vermont Gazette, April 12, 1790. 5. “Strange Contradictions”

1. “The Monitor,” American Herald, May 14, 1789 (also appeared in the Pennsylvania Mercury, May 21, 1789). 2. Independent Chronicle, July 9, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Daily Gazette, July 16, 1789; New York Daily Advertiser, July 17, 1789; Pennsylvania Packet, July 20, 1789; and Virginia Gazette, August 5, 1789). Similarly, see the essay and poem by “A Real Republican” who maintained that the “itch some folks have for titles” was due to “selfishness and pride” and “would very aptly apply to a great number in the United States.” Massachusetts Centinel, August 8, 1789. 3. Jeffrey L. Pasley, “The Tyranny of Printers”: Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 24–78, quotes at 40, 31, 41. For additional insights into the early Republic’s newspaper culture, see Todd Estes, The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evolution of Early American Political Culture (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006), 35–70; Michael Warner, The Letters of the Republic: Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-Century America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), ix–xv, 118–50. 4. Federal Gazette, July 4, 1789. Positive response to this essay is in the Federal Gazette, July 6, 1789. The response took pointed exception to women’s growing fascination with “bishops and cushions,” which added pompous volume to clothes and hair. A bishop and a cushion were types of bustles worn under the skirt of a woman’s dress. In addition, cushions were pads worn under hair. Advertisements for hair cushions were fairly nonexistent until May 1789, which appears to indicate that the popularity of this fussy fashion coincided with the beginning of the new federal government. See the American Mercury, May 18, 1789. By July 1789, one New York

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 1 2 – 1 1 3

205

paper regularly contained ads mentioning hair cushions. See the New York Daily Advertiser, June 27; July 10, 13, 15, 17, 24, 29; August 1, 3–4, 8, 10, 17, 19, 29; and September 5, 1789. 5. New Hampshire Recorder, June 18, 1789. 6. Both the endorsement of William Martin and the critique appear in the Cumberland Gazette, September 27, 1790. Wait’s assurance that all was well between them is in Cumberland Gazette, October 11, 1790. 7. Stephen Hall to George Thatcher, May 30, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:657. 8. Henry Wynkoop to Reading Beatty, May 18, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:590; DHFFC-WMD 9:37. 9. [Eleanor-Francois-Elie] Comte de Moustier to [Armand-Marc] Comte de Montmorin, June 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:734. 10. New York Daily Advertiser, May 15, 1789; Gazette of the United States, May 13– 16, 1789; New York Packet, May 16, 1789; New York Journal, May 21, 1789. 11. The one difference between the official statement of the Senate resolution and the version that appeared in the spring of 1789 was that the Senate Journal read “on intercourse with foreign nations” and the unofficial version read “in an intercourse with foreign nations.” DHFFC 1:45, italics added. 12. Herald of Freedom, May 22, 1789; Massachusetts Centinel, May 23, 1789. 13. The Senate’s titles resolution with the Herald of Freedom’s commentary, “May every son of freedom say Amen,” ran in more than twice as many papers and covered a wider geographic distribution (from Maine to Georgia) than the version without the “say Amen” commentary (Massachusetts and New Hampshire): Herald of Freedom, May 22, 1789; Freeman’s Oracle, May 26, 1789; Cumberland Gazette, May 29, 1789; Pennsylvania Packet, June 1, 1789; Maryland Journal, June 2, 1789; City Gazette, July 4, 1789; Delaware Gazette, June 6, 1789; Georgia Gazette, July 9, 1789; Carlisle Gazette, June 10, 1789; Virginia Gazette, June 10, 1789. The New-Hampshire Spy, May 23, 1789, added the single word, “Amen,” at the end of the resolution language. The following newspapers published the resolution without the “Amen” commentary: Massachusetts Centinel, May 23, 1789; Salem Mercury, May 26, 1789; Independent Chronicle, May 28, 1789; Massachusetts Spy, May 28, 1789; New-Hampshire Recorder, June 4, 1789. 14. New York Daily Advertiser, May 22, 1789. The Boston Gazette ( June 8, 1789) was the first to reprint the short note about “Esquire” being stricken from the journal. The paper ignored the Advertiser’s “Impromptu,” but added the clause “from an aversion to Titles.” This version of the item proved popular throughout New England. It also appeared in the Salem Mercury and Herald of Freedom, June 9, 1789; New Hampshire Gazette, June 11, 1789; Norwich Packet, Connecticut Gazette, and Cumberland Gazette, June 12, 1789; and Federal Herald, June 22, 1789. On the Senate’s discussion and postponement, see William Grayson to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:759–60. On Childs’s location in the House chamber, First Federal Congress Project editors posit that reporters moved from the noisy House galleries to the much better location at the “front of the chamber sometime early in the session and with the tacit consent of the House.” DHFFC 10:xviii.

206

NOTES TO PAGES 1 1 4 –1 1 6

15. New York Packet, June 18, 1789 (also appeared in the Federal Gazette, June 22, 1789; and Gazette of the United States, July 29, 1789). 16. New York Daily Advertiser, July 2, 1789 (also appeared in the Herald of Freedom, July 10, 1789; and Massachusetts Centinel, July 11, 1789). See also: “Some think them [titles] injurious, and others think they shall not share in the plumes—the ambition of many of high hopes is disappointed, and finding themselves low, they look up with a squint at those who may wear titles, and cry ‘Liberty’s in danger!’ ” Massachusetts Centinel, August 5, 1789. 17. Massachusetts Centinel, July 1, 1789 (also appeared in the Gazette of the United States, July 8, 1789; and State Gazette of North Carolina, July 30, 1789). 18. Federal Gazette, June 10, 1789 (also appeared in the Gazette of the United States, New York Packet, and Pennsylvania Mercury, June 13, 1789; New York Daily Gazette, June 15, 1789; and Boston Gazette, July 13, 1789). 19. Independent Chronicle, August 6, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Daily Gazette, August 13, 1789). 20. Stephen Goodhue to Benjamin Goodhue, March 17, 1790, DHFFCCorrespondence 19:892. 21. Independent Chronicle, August 6, 1789 (also appeared in New York Daily Gazette, August 13, 1789). 22. New York Daily Advertiser, June 15, 1789 (Albany, dated June 6, 1789; also appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet, June 18, 1789). The identity of “Pro Republica” may have been Robert Barber, the publisher of the Albany Register. Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington: A Biography, 7 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1948), 6:211–14. For another criticism of Fenno’s pretentiousness and use of titles (it aims at other New York printers, too) that also absolves Washington of any interest in titles (“he despises the froth and folly of empty parade”), see the Boston Gazette, September 7, 1789. The writer refers to an article by “Rusticus” in the New York Morning Post, August 25, 1789 [no longer extant], and a response to “Rusticus” by “Mercator” in the New York Packet, August 27, 1789. 23. Gazette of the United States, May 27–30, 1789; New York Daily Advertiser, June 15, 1789 (Albany, dated June 6, 1789; also appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet, June 18, 1789). 24. See, for example, the Federal Gazette, May 25, 1789; Pennsylvania Packet, May 26, 1789; New York Journal, May 28, 1789; New York Packet, May 28, 1789; New York Daily Advertiser, May 28, 1789. For individuals using “Lady Washington,” see Paine Wingate to Hannah Veazie Wingate, August 1, 1789, and John Langdon to Joshua Brackett, August 4, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1215, 1235. For “Excellency” used for Abigail Adams earlier in the 1780s, and then during the time of the First Federal Congress, see, for example, Mary McCann to John Adams and Abigail Adams, July 2, 1785, and John Cranch to Abigail Adams, November 7, 1786, Adams Family Correspondence, vols. 6–7, AFP (“Excellency” in the body of the letters); Lucy Paradise to Abigail Adams, November 2, 1790, AFMT (written from London, addressed to “Her Excellency Mrs. Adams”). 25. Independent Gazetteer, May 25, 1789 (also appeared in the Maryland Gazette, June 2, 1789; and Virginia Gazette, June 11, 1789). John P. Kaminski and Jill Adair McCaughan, A Great and Good Man: George Washington in the Eyes of His Contempo-

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 1 6 – 1 1 8

207

raries (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1989), 130–31; Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol (New York: Free Press, 1987), 164; Garry Wills, Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 20. For “his Highness” wearing broadcloth, see the New-Hampshire Recorder, May 14, 1789. 26. Frederick Steuben to William North, September 18, 1788, DHFFCCorrespondence 15:533n. 27. James Sullivan to Elbridge Gerry, May 28, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:647. Sullivan referred especially to the high former Federalist politicians of Massachusetts. 28. George Washington to John Adams, May 10, 1789, PGW: Presidential 2:245– 50, quotes at 245, 247; George Washington to the Acting Secretary for Foreign Affairs, May 11, 1789, PGW 30:322, 319–23; George Washington to James Madison, May 12, 1789, PJM 12:157–58; DHFFC-Correspondence 15:532–33. 29. Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, May 5, 1789, PAH 5:335–37; Robert R. Livingston to George Washington, May 2, 1789 [probably unsent, perhaps because Livingston was not asked directly for advice by Washington, either verbally or by written request], PGW: Presidential 2:192–96. 30. John Adams to George Washington, May 17, 1789, PGW: Presidential 2:312–14. 31. Alfred F. Young, The Democratic Republicans of New York: The Origins, 1763– 1797 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1967), 156. 32. Freeman, George Washington, 6:226. 33. James Thomas Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation, 1783–1793 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), 204–9; Patricia Brady, Martha Washington: An American Life (New York: Viking Penguin, 2005), 4. 34. DHFFC-WMD 9:70; Kenneth R. Bowling, “New York City, Capital of the United States, 1785–1790,” in World of the Founders: New York Communities in the Federal Period, ed. Stephen L. Schechter and Wendel Tripp (Albany: New York State Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 1990), 1–23; Flexner, George Washington, 196. 35. New York Daily Advertiser, June 15, 1789 (also appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet, June 18, 1789; and City Gazette, August 3, 1789). See also fears of the “ruinous adoption of European Fashions” in Walter Jones to James Madison, September 15, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1555. 36. Fredrika J. Teute and David S. Shields, “The Confederation Court” (unpublished paper, North American Society of Court Studies Conference, Boston, 2000); Fredrika J. Teute and David S. Shields, “The Republican Court and the Historiography of a Women’s Domain in the Public Sphere” (unpublished paper, Society for the History of the Early Republic—Annual Meeting, Boston, 1994); Bowling, “New York City,” 13–18. 37. Abigail Adams to Mary Cranch, January 24, 1790, Abigail Adams Papers, American Antiquarian Society. For more on the hostesses, see DHFFC-Correspondence 15:xxv. 38. John Adams to William Tudor, May 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:489.

208

NOTES TO PAGES 1 1 8 –1 2 0

39. Epes Sargent to Benjamin Goodhue, April 21, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15: 310. Sargent was a merchant from Gloucester, Massachusetts. 40. New York Daily Advertiser, June 15, 1789. The futuristic satire portion of the “Pro Republica” piece also appeared in Herald of Freedom, June 26, 1789. For another satire mocking newspaper accounts of “court” minutiae, see the critique by “Crito” of reports on the confinement of Henry Knox’s wife, Lucy, during her pregnancy (following the European fashion of announcing the “lying in” of nobility), New York Journal, March 4, 1790. 41. DHFFC-Correspondence 15:xxv (“quasi-political”); David Waldstreicher, “Federalism, the Styles of Politics, and the Politics of Style,” in Federalists Reconsidered, edited by Doron Ben-Atar and Barbara B. Oberg (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998), 104 (“heterosocial space). 42. Cotton Tufts to Abigail Adams, January 7, 1791, AFMT. 43. Eleazer Russell to John Langdon, March 30, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:162. 44. James Warren to Elbridge Gerry, April 19, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:287; George Thatcher to James Sullivan, December 9, 1790, Thatcher Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. 45. Otho H. Williams to Philip Thomas, June 7, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:719. 46. William Maclay to Tench Coxe, April 15, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:267. 47. [Eleanor-Francois-Elie] Comte de Moustier to [Armand-Marc] Comte de Montmorin, June 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:736. See also Louis Guillaume Otto to Comte de Montmorin, March 31, 1790, DHFFC-Correspondence 19:1054–56. Otto observed that the Macomb mansion, Washington’s second and much grander New York residence, provided “much more pomp than before and fulfills perfectly the expectations of the public.” 48. New York Daily Advertiser, May 22, 1789; DHFFC 10:582; John Page to St. George Tucker, July 23, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1110. Page’s poem appeared in the same issue as the titles impromptu and notice about the House rejecting “Esquire” in its journals, n. 14. This is the same John Page who wrote poems that objected to what he perceived as monarchism in John Adams’s Defence of the Constitution, discussed in chapter 3. 49. Gazette of the United States, May 30–June 3, 1789. The “Son of Mahomet” commentary also appeared in the Herald of Freedom, June 9, 1789; New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine, June 11, 1789; and Massachusetts Centinel, June 13, 1789. 50. Massachusetts Centinel, June 20, 1789. 51. Boston Gazette, June 22, 1789 (also appeared in the Federal Gazette, July 1, 1789). 52. Herald of Freedom, January 29, 1790. See “Thomas’s Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode-Island, Newhampshire and Vermont almanack, with an ephemeris, for the year of our lord 1790,” EAI, no. 21857 (1789). Written by Samuel Stearns or Ezra Gleason. The 1790 Thomas almanac used “His Highness” for Washington, “His Excellency” for Adams, and “Most Hon.” and “Hon.” for senators and representatives, respectively. In addition, “Esquire” followed every name.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 2 0 – 1 2 2

209

53. New York Daily Advertiser, September 21, 1790. For other opinion pieces criticizing excessive federal debt and splendor and promoting a less-extravagant government and more republican representatives, see Herald of Freedom, October 9, 1789, and October 19, 1790; New York Journal, April 8, 1790; and New York Daily Gazette, September 9, 1790. 54. General Advertiser, May 17, 1791 (also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, May 21, 1791; Independent Chronicle, May 26, 1791; New York Journal, May 28, 1791; Cumberland Gazette, May 30, 1791; and Litchfield Monitor, June 15, 1791). 55. Massachusetts Spy, April 15, 1790 (also appeared in the Herald of Freedom, May 11, 1790; and Salem Gazette, September 21, 1790). Boston Gazette, October 5, 1789. For another protest of “Most Honorable,” see Massachusetts Spy, March 18, 1790. For scornful criticism of “the ‘truly’ ‘illustrious’ John Fenno . . . and the ‘Most Honorable’ Benjamin Russell,” see Boston Gazette, August 3, 1789 (also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, August 11, 1789). 56. Boston Gazette, August 17, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Journal, August 27, 1789). 57. Independent Chronicle, July 16, 1789 (also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, July 24, 1789). 58. Thomas B. Wait to George Thatcher, August 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1272. Similarly, see titles as “humiliating to the brave daring and intrepid sons of American liberty.” Gazette of the United States, September 2, 1789. 59. Newport Herald, July 9, 1789 (also appeared in the Boston Gazette, July 13, 1789; New York Daily Advertiser, July 17, 1789; Federal Gazette, July 17, 1789; Pennsylvania Mercury, July 18, 1789; and Pennsylvania Packet, July 18, 1789). 60. William Grayson to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:759–60. 61. Gazette of the United States, August 1, 1789 (also appeared in the Federal Gazette, August 5, 1789). 62. Gazette of the United States, August 8, 1789 (also appeared in the Federal Gazette, August 13, 1789; United States Chronicle, August 13, 1789; Herald of Freedom, August 14, 1789; New-Hampshire Spy, August 18, 1789; and Norwich Packet, September 4, 1789). An opposition response appeared in the Herald of Freedom, August 21, 1789. The response played on the words of the original to argue against compensation. For example, it changed the meaning of the original’s criticism of the outcry against titles and instead lauded the “firm and manly opposition that was judiciously raised against titles and distinctions.” 63. Massachusetts Centinel, August 26, 1789; Herald of Freedom, September 4, 1789. 64. New York Journal, September 10, 1789; Boston Gazette, August 3, 1789 (also appeared in the Independent Gazette, August 11, 1789; and Gazette of the United States, August 12, 1789). 65. Boston Gazette, July 27, 1789 (also appeared in the Connecticut Journal, October 14, 1789; and Federal Gazette, July 30, 1789). 66. Federal Gazette, July 30, 1789. 67. Independent Chronicle, September 2, 1790. 68. Federal Gazette, August 13, 1789.

210

NOTES TO PAGES 1 2 2 –1 2 4

69. New York Journal, April 8, 1790. For another criticism of federal dignity and splendor, see the Boston Gazette, August 30, 1790, responding to an article in the Columbian Centinel, August 28, 1790. 70. Federal Gazette, August 8, 1789. For more on the doorkeeper flap, see the New York Daily Advertiser, August 10, 1789; Federal Gazette, August 13, 1789; Norwich Packet, September 18, 1789; and Connecticut Journal, September 23, 1789. 71. “Virginia to New-England, New York, Pennsylvania, and Carolina,” Virginia Independent Chronicle, March 10, 1790, DHFFC-Correspondence 18:214–15 (also appeared in the Connecticut Courant, April 5, 1790; and Cumberland Gazette, June 21, 1790). A similar item appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, June 5, 1790. The Virginia Independent Chronicle item was written in response to an article addressed to “Mrs. Virginia, alias the Ancient Dominion” from “New-England, New-York, Pennsylvania, Carolina, and c,” Connecticut Courant, January 14, 1790. Another critique of Hamilton’s plan ended with: “I hear the sound of KING,” but “President is much the best.” This same correspondent dedicated the essay “to His Excellency George Washington, Esq., Captain-General and Commander in Chief in and over the United States of America, and President of the same.” “Remarks on the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury to the House of Representatives,” EAI, no. 22833 (May 1790). 72. New York Daily Advertiser, June 23, 1789. Although the main culprit in Boston was the Massachusetts Centinel, Jackson blamed the use of grand titles on all the “newspapers of Boston, that town, in which fifteen years ago, they knew no lord but the Lord of Hosts.” Although the Centinel defended distinctions of rank in a brief response, foes of regal titles in the city rushed to defend themselves against Jackson’s charges and asked not to be judged by “the servile temper of a few paragraphists in a single paper.” Independent Chronicle, July 9, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Daily Gazette, July 16, 1789; New York Daily Advertiser, July 17, 1789; Pennsylvania Packet, July 20, 1789; and Virginia Gazette, August 5, 1789). Massachusetts Centinel, July 8, 1789 (also appeared in the Salem Mercury, July 14, 1789). 73. DHFFFC-WMD 9:80. 74. As discussed in chapter 3, “Excellency” was standard usage for all state governors except in Georgia, where the state constitution specified the title of “His Honor.” Although “Excellency” for governors led some to believe that titles were stipulated in all state constitutions, the only other constitution to specify titles was Massachusetts (“His Excellency” for governor, “His Honor” for lieutenant governor). 75. Oliver Wolcott Sr. to Oliver Ellsworth, June 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:868. 76. Massachusetts Centinel, June 13, 1789 (also appeared in the New-Hampshire Spy, June 16, 1789; Gazette of the United States, June 20, 1789; and New York Packet, June 20, 1789). For additional reference to the common use of “His Excellency” in the states, see the Massachusetts Centinel, July 29, 1789. For additional examples of the argument that the “genius of the people” supports titles, see the Massachusetts Centinel, June 20, 1789; July 8, 1789; and August 26, 1789. 77. Gazette of the United States, August 12, 1789 (also appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet, August 21, 1789; Pennsylvania Herald, September 2, 1789; and State Gazette of South Carolina, September 17, 1789). 78. Massachusetts Centinel, July 8, 1789 (also appeared in the American Herald, July 16, 1789). The part suggesting the title “His Majesty, etc.” appeared in the Gazette

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 2 4 – 1 2 5

211

of the United States, July 15, 1789. The title of “Majesty” excited a barrage of support from the Massachusetts Centinel. See for example: A correspondent to the Massachusetts Centinel of July 25, 1789, repeated the argument for “Majesty” as representative of the “Majesty of the People.” Similarly, another correspondent opined that “the People of America would do no more than justice to style the Chief Ruler of our Empire, ‘His patriotick Majesty.’ It would be original—and have a meaning.” Massachusetts Centinel, August 12, 1789 (also appeared in the Gazette of the United States, August 22, 1789). For a reference to “Majesty of the People,” which argues that “the title of ‘His Majesty’ would not be a ‘title of nobility,’ but a title of Sovereignty,” see the Massachusetts Centinel, August 5, 1789 (also appeared in the Gazette of the United States, August 12, 1789). 79. Massachusetts Centinel, July 11, 1789 (also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, July 21, 1789). See also the use of “Excellency” for the president of the Confederation Congress despite the “clause in the Confederation which forbids all titles of nobility.” Gazette of the United States, August 12, 1789 (also appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet, August 21, 1789; Cumberland Gazette, August 21, 1789; and State Gazette of South Carolina, September 17, 1789). This essay used the Confederation example to assert that “Excellency” had not been considered a threat then (“was not then a title of that import”) and should not be considered one now. 80. Massachusetts Centinel, July 11, 1789. See also Massachusetts Centinel, July 29, 1789; Gazette of the United States, August 12, 1789. 81. Federal Gazette, July 30, 1789. 82. Massachusetts Centinel, August 5, 1789. 83. Gazette of the United States, May 13–16, 1789. 84. “Observations on the Agriculture, Manufactures and Commerce of the United States,” EAI, no. 21774 (September 1789). Although EAI credits Tench Coxe with authorship, Coxe’s biographer, Jacob Cooke, questions the attribution. Cooke argues that the writing style is not Coxe’s and believes that the content implies the author is a New Englander. Jacob E. Cooke, Tench Coxe and the Early Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978), 149–50n, published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. As for the publication date of the document, EAI identifies only the year 1789. However, advertisements for “Observations” began running in the New York Daily Advertiser, September 14, 1789. The heading of the ad read: “On this day published.” The same ad ran daily in the NYDA, September 14–18; it also ran on September 22 and 26, 1789. 85. Herald of Freedom, July 10 and 17, 1789. “Caution” of the July 10 issue also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, July 20, 1789; and United States Chronicle, August 20, 1789. 86. Independent Chronicle, July 16, 1789 (also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, July 24, 1789). 87. Boston Gazette, July 27, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Packet, August 1, 1789; and Independent Gazetteer, August 4, 1789). The article also lambasts John Fenno and Benjamin Russell and praises the House: “Which shall we regard? The Federal House of Representatives, or these virtuous editors of two impartial newspapers—The Gazette of the United States, and the Massachusetts Centinel?”

212

NOTES TO PAGES 1 2 5 –1 2 9

88. Boston Gazette, July 27, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Packet, August 1, 1789; and Independent Gazetteer, August 4, 1789). 89. Herald of Freedom, August 7, 1789. For another argument that favors the Constitution’s article against titles of nobility, see “they may as well change the government itself, as introduce new, extraordinary titles which the people neither know nor approve.” Boston Gazette, August 3, 1789. For a criticism of the use of “Excellency” for the president of the Confederation Congress, see the Boston Gazette, September 14, 1789. 90. Boston Gazette, August 3, 1789 (also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, August 11, 1789). 91. Newport Herald, September 10, 1789 (also appeared in the Connecticut Gazette, September 11, 1789; Salem Mercury, September 15, 1789; and Norfolk and Portsmouth Chronicle, September 26, 1789). 92. New York Daily Gazette, May 27, 1789 (also appeared in the Independent Chronicle, June 4, 1789). 93. Herald of Freedom, August 7, 1789. 94. Massachusetts Centinel, August 1, 22, and 5, 1789. For the August 22 citation, the full quote reads: “If the advocates for National Titles could have been influenced by personal motives, they would have engaged on the opposite side of the question; and by preventing National made the State Titles more respectable—and every body know how easy a State Title is to be obtained.” 95. Massachusetts Centinel, August 5 and 15, 1789. This writer may be the same “An American” as in note 78. The essays all originated in the Massachusetts Centinel and occured within a month of each other. The August 15 issue contained a second item calling for consistency and using the extreme position to advocate for federal titles: “Either abolish all titles of distinction—or give them to our Federal Rulers.” 96. Independent Chronicle, August 13 and 20, 1789. The August 13 article also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, August 26, 1789. See chapter 6 n.10 for discussion of Massachusetts attorney general James Sullivan as the identity of another writer using the pen name “a Real Republican” whose article appeared in late 1790. Although Sullivan very well could be the writer of these 1789 articles, the pen name “A Real Republican” was somewhat common, especially in Boston. See for example, Massachusetts Centinel, May 23 and 30, and August 13, 1787, and February 28, and August 8, 1789; American Herald, August 13, 1787; Independent Chronicle, April 2, 1789, and April 29, 1790. See also n. 2. 97. Independent Chronicle, August 13 and 20, 1789. The title provisions in the Massachusetts Constitution are discussed in chapter 3. 98. Massachusetts Centinel, August 26, 1789. 99. Mass. Const. chap. 2, § 1, art. I and § 2, art. I. Available at http://www.mass .gov/legis/const.htm. 100. Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790. 101. Thomas Dwight to Theodore Sedgwick, January 24, 1790, Sedgwick Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. 102. Herald of Freedom, August 18, 21, and 25, 1789. 103. Herald of Freedom, August 18 and 25, 1789. 104. [Eleanor-Francois-Elie] Comte de Moustier to [Armand-Marc] Comte de Montmorin, June 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:734.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 2 9 – 1 3 0

213

105. Federal Gazette, June 8, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Packet, June 13, 1789). The republished version under the heading “Observations on Obscurity of Birth” first appeared in American Museum 7, no. 6 ( June 1790), APS. This version appeared in the Herald of Freedom, July 9, 1790; Newport Herald, September 2, 1790; American Mercury, September 13, 1790; Litchfield Monitor, September 20, 1790; Norwich Packet, September 24, 1790, and April 5, 1792; New York Packet, October 21, 1790; Connecticut Journal, October 27, 1790; New Jersey Journal, October 27, 1790, and October 10, 1792; American Herald, November 1, 1790; Independent Gazetteer, March 17, 1792, and April 22, 1795; New-Hampshire Spy, April 4, 1792; Eastern Herald, May 7, 1792; Concord Herald, May 30, 1792; and the Diary or Loudon’s Register, October 15, 1792. In 1835, the Mechanics’ Magazine reprinted part of the essay, but did not include the paragraphs on parties. Mechanics’ Magazine 5, no. 4 (April 1835), APS. 106. For consistency considerations for judges, see John Jay to Richard Law, March 10, 1790, Wayne State University Library, Detroit, MI. Jay advises the same treatment for state and federal circuit judges: “Judges on the circuits should in the first Instance be recd. in the manner accustomed with respect to the Judges of the State sup. Courts.” 107. Gazette of the United States, September 2, 1789. 108. Cumberland Gazette, September 4, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1385. The First Federal Congress Project notes: “This is probably from a letter written by [George] Thatcher to the newspaper’s editor, Thomas B. Wait.” 109. Releases from the Senate Journal began appearing in newspapers shortly after the first session ended on September 29, 1789. Extracts from the Senate Journal for May 14 containing the title resolution appeared sporadically throughout the fall and into winter; for example, see New York Daily Gazette, October 28, 1789; Gazette of the United States, December 5, 1789; Massachusetts Centinel, December 16, 1789; and New Hampshire Gazette, December 23, 1789. 110. Massachusetts Centinel, November 21, 1789 (also appeared in the Federal Gazette, December 3, 1789). Independent Chronicle, November 27, 1789. 111. Courier de Boston, August 27, 1789 (also appeared in the Boston Gazette, September 14, 1789). 112. Gazette of the United States, September 4, 1790 (also appeared in the Federal Gazette, September 8, 1790; Connecticut Gazette, September 10, 1790; Maryland Gazette, September 14, 1790; New York Journal, September 15, 1790; and State Gazette of North Carolina, October 15, 1790). 113. New York Daily Advertiser, November 4, 1790 (also appeared in the New York Packet, November 6, 1790; Pennsylvania Journal, November 10, 1790; Maryland Gazette, November 12, 1790; and Maryland Journal, November 12, 1790). 114. Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser, May 10, 1791 (also appeared in the General Advertiser, May 11, 1791; New York Daily Gazette, May 12, 1791; Independent Gazetteer, May 14, 1791; and Columbian Centinel, May 21, 1791. John Dunlap, the newspaper’s publisher, changed the name of The Pennsylvania Packet to Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser in 1791. Dunlap had a long career in publishing and famously produced the Dunlap Broadside, which was the first printed version of the completed Declaration of Independence. Pauline Maier, American Scripture:

214

NOTES TO PAGES 1 3 1 –1 3 4

Making the Declaration of Independence (New York: Vintage Books, 1997), 131, 159, 272n.93. 115. Federal Gazette, June 4, 1791 (also appeared in the General Advertiser, June 7, 1791; Norwich Packet, July 21, 1791; and Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser, July 28, 1791). 116. New York Journal, September 3, 1790. 117. New York Daily Advertiser, October 4, 1790 (extract of a letter from Philadelphia; also appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet, October 8, 1790; and Independent Chronicle, October 14, 1790). 118. Federal Gazette, May 7, 1791 (also appeared in the Burlington Advertiser, May 10, 1791; Columbian Centinel, June 22, 1791; Connecticut Gazette, June 30, 1791; Massachusetts Spy, June 30, 1791; New York Daily Gazette, July 1, 1791; Newport Herald, July 2, 1791; the Mail; or, ClayPoole’s Daily Advertiser, July 4, 1791; New York Journal, July 9, 1791; Western Star, July 12, 1791; New-Jersey Journal, July 20, 1791; and Vermont Journal, August 2, 1791). 119. New York Journal, June 18, 1789 (also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, June 22, 1789; Pennsylvania Packet, June 23, 1789; Virginia Independent Chronicle, July 1, 1789; and Independent Chronicle, July 2, 1789). 6. A “Dangerous Vice”

1. DHFFC-WMD 9:33. Maclay’s diary was not published until the late 1800s. 2. Edward Church, “The Dangerous Vice---------: A Fragment. Addressed to All Whom It May Concern. By a Gentleman, Formerly of Boston,” EAI, no. 21736 (1789). Although authorship also has been attributed to Silvanus Bourne, Bourne referred to Church as the author in Silvanus Bourne to John Adams, September 8, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1487. 3. New York Journal, February 3, 1791 (also appeared in the Vermont Gazette, February 21, 1791). 4. St. George Tucker to Thomas Tudor Tucker, June 3, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 16:691–93; [St. George Tucker], “Up and Ride; or, The Borough of Brooklyn: A Farce,” June 1789, Tucker-Coleman Collection, College of William and Mary. 5. Independent Chronicle, July 16, 1789 (also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, July 24, 1789). 6. Independent Gazetteer, July 29, 1789 (also appeared in the Boston Gazette, August 10, 1789). See also, “high flyers” in Independent Gazetteer ( June 13, 1789). 7. Independent Chronicle, September 9, 1790 (also appeared in the New York Daily Advertiser, September 18, 1790). 8. New York Journal, May 11 and August 3, 1790. The May 11 article berating the Senate as “your most agreeable Highnesses” may have been written by Senator William Maclay, based on the writing style and the references to Senate proceedings, which display a quality of firsthand familiarity. Maclay wrote several other articles for newspapers during his short term in the Senate. DHFFC-WMD 9:406–26. 9. George L. Turberville to James Madison, June 16, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:792. For a report of criticism of the Constitution due to Senate advocacy of

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 3 4 – 1 3 5

215

titles, see Edward Stevens to James Madison, June 25, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:858. 10. Independent Chronicle, December 30, 1790 (also appeared in the Cumberland Gazette, January 3, 1791). Sullivan was identified as “a Real Republican” by George Thatcher (George Thatcher to James Sullivan, January 13, 1791, Thatcher Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society). Special thanks to William diGiacomantonio for this reference. It is not clear that Sullivan also wrote as “a Real Republican” in the 1789 exchange with “an American” that is discussed in chapter 5. However, all of these articles by “a Real Republican,” both those from 1789 and this one from 1790, appeared first in the Independent Chronicle. For two other articles by “A Real Republican” from the Independent Chronicle, see April 2, 1789, and April 29, 1790. 11. Independent Chronicle, June 4, 1790 (also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, June 12, 1790). See also, “The House of Representatives has named a Clerk; the Senate has given the title of Secretary to an identical Officer. Democratic spirit still prevails in the House; the Senate is guided by Aristocratic principles, and even tends toward monarchism.” [Eleanor-Francois-Elie] Comte de Moustier to [Armand-Marc] Comte de Montmorin, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:730. 12. Independent Gazetteer, July 29, 1789 (also appeared in the Boston Gazette, August 10, 1789). See also, “Nothing seems to be more generally exclaimed at than their keeping the door shut while sitting as legislators.” Joseph Jones to James Madison, July 3, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:925. 13. Joseph Jones to James Madison, May 28, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:642–43. 14. Epes Sargent to Benjamin Goodhue, May 26, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:632. 15. New York Daily Advertiser, July 9, 1790; DHFFC-Correspondence 20:2000– 2001. First Congress editors date this “Letter from Hartford” as written July 1, 1790, and found it “reprinted at Philadelphia; Baltimore; Edenton, North Carolina; and Charleston, South Carolina.” For the House’s use of “Honourable” as an argument for titles, see the Massachusetts Centinel, August 19, 1789. For title-related teasing of a House member for being part of the federal elite (“May it Please your Highness . . . Since you are become one of those dreadful great folks”), see Lott Hall to George Thatcher, June 6, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:708. See also, criticism of British-inspired title “innovations” being contemplated for the House of Representatives: “I never suffer The House of Commons, or any other new and additional appellation to pass unnoticed.” Peter Muhlenburg to Benjamin Rush, April 20, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:300–301. For mention of the House of Representatives as the House of Commons, see the New York Daily Gazette, April 2, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Weekly Museum, April 4, 1789; Federal Gazette, April 4, 1789; Pennsylvania Mercury, April 7, 1789; and Freeman’s Journal, April 8, 1789). 16. Fisher Ames to George R. Minot, May 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:637. 17. Thomas Fitzsimons to Benjamin Rush, May 15, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:559. Other legislators also told Rush about the debate during May. See Frederick

216

NOTES TO PAGES 1 3 5 –1 3 8

A. Muhlenberg to Benjamin Rush, May 8, 1789; Peter Muhlenberg to Benjamin Rush, May 11, 1789; and William Maclay to Benjamin Rush, May 18, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 15:483–84, 513–14, 586–87. Neither Muhlenberg letter mentioned Adams; Maclay assumed that his opposition to grand titles had “incurred his [Adams’s] displeasure.” 18. William Grayson to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:757. 19. John Adams to Cotton Tufts, July 20, 1776, quoted in John A. Schutz and Douglass Adair, eds., The Spur of Fame: Dialogues of John Adams and Benjamin Rush, 1805–1813 (San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1966), 6. In chapter 3, the analysis of Adams’s view of titles contains several references to letters exchanged with William Tudor, Jabez Bowen, and others during this period, including Rush. 20. Benjamin Rush to John Adams, March 19, April 22 and 24, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 15:79–81, 323, 350. 21. Benjamin Rush to John Adams, June 4, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:699– 701; Benjamin Rush to Tench Coxe, February 14, 1789, Tench Coxe Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 22. John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:727–28. 23. Benjamin Rush to John Adams, June 15, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:783–84. 24. John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 19, 1789, in Alexander Biddle, Old Family Letters, Series A (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1892), 39–40. 25. John Adams to Benjamin Rush, July 5, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:943–45. Adams thought Rush deceived himself by disdaining titles, and asked Rush how he would feel if his children “instead of calling you, Sir, or Father or Papa, should accost you with, the Title ‘Ben’?” 26. Benjamin Rush to John Adams, July 21, 1789, Lyman H. Butterfield, ed. Letters of Benjamin Rush, 2 vols. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), 1:522–25. His reference to swearing and a ship’s crew indicates that Rush either read the recent article that found strong titles as obsolete as the need for swearing “to govern a ship’s crew,” or he wrote it himself. See Federal Gazette, June 10, 1789 (also appeared in the Gazette of the United States, New York Packet and Pennsylvania Mercury, June 13, 1789; New York Daily Gazette, June 15, 1789; and Boston Gazette, July 13, 1789). Note also the implied general usage in Rush’s off hand reference to “Mr.” before “President” and “Vice-President.” 27. John Adams to Benjamin Rush, July 24 and 28, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1123–25, 1154–55. 28. Benjamin Rush to Tench Coxe, June 8, 1790, DHFFC-Correspondence 19:1756. 29. Benjamin Rush to John Adams, April 13, 1790, Butterfield, Letters of Benjamin Rush, 1:544–49. 30. John Adams to Benjamin Rush, April 18, 1790, DHFFC-Correspondence 19:1260–61. 31. New York Packet, March 20 and 24, 1789. 32. John Adams to Roger Sherman, July 18, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1061–63.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 3 8 – 1 4 2

217

33. John Adams to Roger Sherman, July 20, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1079–83. See also Adams to Sherman, July 17, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1053–54. 34. Roger Sherman to John Adams, July 20, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1089–91. 35. Roger Sherman to John Adams, July 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1148–50. 36. Independent Gazetteer, June 8, 1789 (also appeared in the American Herald, June 18, 1789). 37. [Eleanor-Francois-Elie] Comte de Moustier to [Armand-Marc] Comte de Montmorin, June 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:734. 38. Louis Guillaume Otto to [Armand-Marc] Comte de Montmorin, June 13, 1790, DHFFC-Correspondence 19:1804–7. 39. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, July 29, 1789, PJM 12:315. 40. DHFFC-WMD 9:211. 41. John Page to St. George Tucker, February 25, 1790, DHFFC-Correspondence 18:632–33. See also, Charlene Bangs Bickford and Kenneth R. Bowling, Birth of the Nation: The First Federal Congress, 1789–1791 (Lanham, MD: Madison House, 1989), 28. 42. Lund Washington to George Washington, April 28, 1790, PGW: Presidential 5:353–55; DHFFC-Correspondence 19:1363. Lund also reported that “Mason has seen some poem in which the Vice president is much Satarised and was so pleased at it, that he took two copys of it in his own handwriteg.” It appears that although Mason worried that a president would be a corrupt tool of the Senate, he (like James Sullivan and Joseph Jones) opposed the Adams remedy of exalted titles for the chief executive. 43. Independent Gazetteer, February 20, 1790 (also appeared in the Exeter Journal, March 10, 1790). Among the articles identified as written by Maclay in DHFFCWMD 9:411–13. 44. New York Journal, February 3, 1791 (also appeared in the Vermont Gazette, February 21, 1791). 45. John Trumbull to John Adams, March 14, 1790, DHFFC-Correspondence 18:870–72; 20:2736. See the discussion of Connecticut Wits and Rising Glory sentiments in chapter 1. 46. St. George Tucker to Thomas Tudor Tucker, June 3, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 16:691–93. The end of the letter is missing and it may not have been sent. However, Thomas Tudor Tucker knew about the farce and advised his brother about it (Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, September 15, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 17:1553–54). 47. [St. George Tucker], “Up and Ride”; St. George Tucker to Thomas Tudor Tucker, June 3, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:691–93. The First Federal Congress Project editors believe Adams, Washington, Jay, and Lee to be the probable identities of Goosequill, Wheatsheaf, Starch, and Leashore, respectively. 48. [St. George Tucker], “Up and Ride.” 49. Ibid. 50. Ibid.

218

NOTES TO PAGES 1 4 2 –1 4 5

51. Ibid. Tucker may have intended one of the gallant and daring common councilmen, Jemmy Smoakum, to be Representative James Madison. I base this surmise on the similarity of “Jemmy” to “James,” on the character’s role as a councilman (not an alderman) who acts against titles, and on Madison’s pedigree as a Virginian, which well might have appealed to fellow Virginian (since the age of nineteen) Tucker’s idea of the proper hero of the play. 52. Ibid. 53. Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, September 15, 1789, DHFFCCorrespondence 17:1553–54. 54. Richard Henry Lee to Charles Lee, August 28, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1413. For Madison’s criticisms of Lee on titles, see James Madison to Edmund Randolph, May 10 and 31, 1789, and James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 23 and 27, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:502–3, 664–65, 619–20, 638–39. 55. DHFFC 14:874. 56. Richard Henry Lee to Edmund Randolph, October 16, 1787, DHROC 8:62. 57. Church, “Dangerous Vice,” DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1775. Massachusetts Centinel, August 22, 1789 (also appeared in the Norwich Packet, September 4, 1789). Advertisements for the sale of “Dangerous Vice” appeared in the Boston Gazette, August 24 and 31, and September 7, 1789; Massachusetts Centinel, August 26 and September 5, 1789; Herald of Freedom, August 28, September 1 and 4, 1789; Independent Chronicle, September 3, 1789; and Massachusetts Spy, September 3 and October 8, 1789. The ads in the Centinel and the Chronicle carried the heading “Genuine Political Satire.” Shortly after the poem’s release in Boston, Church made himself scarce and decamped for Georgia. In the summer of 1775, Edward Church’s brother, Dr. Benjamin Church, “ran the medical ser vice of the New England army around Boston” and became the chief physician of the Continental army. He had been supplying information to Britain’s General Gage since, at least, the previous winter. Church’s treason was discovered in September 1775; he was arrested and convicted. Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 525–26, 271. 58. Abigail Adams to Mary Cranch, September 1, 1789, Abigail Adams, 25. An extract of a letter from New York reported that “there are some [copies of “Dangerous Vice”] in the City.” Massachusetts Centinel, September 5, 1789. See also, “now sold by the Booksellers in this city,” New York Daily Advertiser, September 10, 1789. 59. Church, “Dangerous Vice.” 60. Ibid. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. See also, should Adams achieve the presidency, “he will have it for life: His ambition is considerable.” William Smith (S.C.) to Edward Rutledge, August 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1267. 63. Massachusetts Centinel, September 5, 1789. “Reprinted in whole or in part at Portland, Maine; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Salem and Worcester, Massachusetts; Newport, Rhode Island; and New York.” DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1433. 64. New York Daily Advertiser, September 26, 1789.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 4 5 – 1 4 8

219

65. Boston Gazette, August 31, 1789. 66. Boston Gazette, September 7, 1789 (also appeared in the Norwich Packet, September 18, 1789.) 67. Norwich Packet, September 18, 1789. 68. New York Daily Advertiser, September 19, 1789). 69. Independent Chronicle, August 27, 1789 (“sentiment”); Massachusetts Centinel, September 12, 1789 (“shadow of satire”); Massachusetts Centinel, August 26, 1789 (“toothless hound”). 70. Massachusetts Centinel, August 26, 1789. 71. New York Daily Advertiser, September 10, 1789. Church actually “was appointed United States consul to Bilbao, Portugal, in 1790 but did not serve” (DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1775). 72. Abigail Adams to Mary Cranch, September 1, 1789, Abigail Adams, 24–25. 73. Cotton Tufts to Abigail Adams, September 15, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1554. 74. Fisher Ames to John Lowell, September 13, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1522. 75. John Adams to Jeremy Belknap, September 26, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1617. 76. John Adams to James Lovell, September 1 (“submissions to insult”) and 14 (Scape Goat”), 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1444, 1538. 77. John Adams to James Lovell, September 1, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1444. To the concern of the panicked young nation, Washington became ill and took to his bed for six weeks in the summer of 1789. His tour of New England that fall was intended, in part, to further his recovery to full health. Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington: A Biography, 7 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1948), 6:214–18, 240. 78. John Adams to William Cushing, September 8, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1485. Fisher Ames noted the timing overlap of criticism from “Dangerous Vice” and from the deciding votes Adams cast in the Senate: Fisher Ames to James Lovell, September 13, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1522–23. 79. John Adams to Abigail Adams, December 14, 1798, AFP. In the eighteenth century, “confuse” could mean to disconcert, put to shame, cast down, or abash. Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (Foundation for American Christian Education, Facsimile of 1st Edition of 1828, 1967). 80. Boston Gazette, August 24, 1789. 81. Church, “Dangerous Vice.” 82. Ibid. 83. Abigail Adams to Mary Cranch, September 1, 1789, Abigail Adams, 26; Church, “Dangerous Vice.” 84. Anthony Wayne to James Jackson, June 10, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:747. 85. John Wendell to Elbridge Gerry, July 23, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:1119. 86. James Freeman to George Thatcher, June 22, 1789, Gilder Lehrman Collection, New York Historical Society. See also, “ ‘ILLUSTRIOUS’ . . . ought to be

220

NOTES TO PAGES 1 4 9 –1 5 1

bestowed on the name of our WORTHY PRESIDENT.” Herald of Freedom, August 11, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Daily Gazette, August 17, 1789; and Pennsylvania Packet, August 20, 1789). 87. Boston Gazette, September 7, 1789; Independent Chronicle, July 9, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Daily Gazette, July 16, 1789; New York Daily Advertiser, July 17, 1789; Pennsylvania Packet, July 20, 1789; and Virginia Gazette, August 5, 1789). 88. Boston Gazette, July 27, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Packet, August 1, 1789; and Independent Gazetteer, August 4). The Gazette of the United States (August 1, 1789) referred to the article’s criticism of New York and included a defense of the city purportedly written by a correspondent: “The reflection on this city . . . conveys neither the sentiments of the inhabitants of Boston, or the people of Massachusetts at large. Of the great number . . . to visit New-York, at this interesting period, not a single complaint, respecting the ‘folly and dissipation’ of the citizens, has ever been heard.” 89. Boston Gazette, August 3, 1789 (also appeared in the Independent Gazetteer, August 11, 1789). 90. Gazette of the United States, May 9–13, 1789, and Congressional Register (for May 11, 1789), July 30, 1789, DHFFC 10:593, 597. 91. DHFFC-WMD 9:105. 92. David Stuart to George Washington, July 14, 1789, PGW: Presidential 3:198– 204. In 1783, David Stuart married Eleanor Calvert Custis, the widow of Martha Washington’s son, John Parke Custis. Stuart was a physician and planter and served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1785 to 1788. DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1887. 93. David Stuart to George Washington, July 14, 1789, PGW: Presidential 3:198– 204; [St. George Tucker], “Up and Ride.” Washington lived in the Osgood and Macomb residences near Federal Hall; Adams lived on Berkeley Hill (now Greenwich Village) and would have needed some kind of conveyance to get to Federal Hall. Washington mentioned that Adams, “though high toned,” rode in a carriage with just two horses. George Washington to David Stuart, July 26, 1789, PGW: Presidential 3:323. 94. George Washington to David Stuart, July 26, 1789, PGW: Presidential 3:321–27. 95. Ibid.; DHFFC 1:45. 96. Edmund Randolph to James Madison, September 26, 1789, PJM 12:421. 97. Rufus W. Griswold, The Republican Court; or, American Society in the Days of Washington (New York: D. Appleton, 1854), 153–54; Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution of the United States (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1913), 163. Another early source that is still cited occasionally and appears to have used Griswold, although there is no attribution, is Albert Bushnell Hart, Formation of the Union, 1750–1829 (New York: Longmans, Greene, 1897), 143. 98. See, for example, Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Repubic, 1789–1815 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 83–84; Gordon S. Wood, Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (New York: Penguin, 2006), 54. In Empire of Liberty, Wood cites Farrand; in Revolutionary Characters,

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 5 2 – 1 5 4

221

Wood cites Farrand secondarily by citing Leonard White, who cited Farrand. Leonard D. White, The Federalists: A Study in Administrative History (New York: Macmillan, 1948), 108. See also Frank Prochaska, The Eagle and the Crown: Americans and the British Monarchy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 16. Prochaska cites Griswold. 99. DHFFC-WMD 9:40. For “an Old Soldier, and an Irishman,” see Independent Gazetteer, February 20, 1790 (also appeared in the Exeter Journal, March 10, 1790). Among the articles identified as written by Maclay in DHFFC-WMD 9:411–13. 100. Stanley M. Elkins and Eric L. McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 763– 64n25 (debunking and Muhlenburg supposition). 101. DHFFC-WMD 9:37; Henry Wynkoop to Reading Beatty, May 10, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:504. I discuss Maclay’s reference to the “His Highness” jests in chapter 4. 102. DHFFC-WMD 9:60. For Washington’s inquiries on etiquette, see the discussion in chapter 5. 103. Lloyd’s Notes, May 11, 1789, and Congressional Register (for May 11, 1789), July 30, 1789, DHFFC 10:582, 598. 104. DHFFC-WMD 9:37. 105. Henry Wynkoop to Reading Beatty, May 10, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 15:504. 106. George Washington to David Stuart, July 26, 1789, PGW: Presidential 3:321–27. 107. William Barton to George Washington, August 28, 1788, and George Washington to William Barton, September 7, 1788, PGW: Confederation 6:476–78, 501–3. See the discussion of Barton’s heraldry suggestion in chapter 1. 108. George Washington to David Stuart, July 26, 1789, PGW: Presidential 3:321. 109. For examples of “President,” see: Boston Gazette, October 26, 1789; Independent Chronicle, October 22 and 29, 1789; and Norwich Packet, November 6, 1789. For examples of “Illustrious,” see: Norwich Packet, October 30, 1789; and “Newbury-Port, October 28, 1789. As This Town Is on Friday Next to Be Honored with a Visit from ‘The Man Who Unites All Hearts’ the Illustrious President of the United States, the Inhabitants Thereof, This Day in Town Meeting Assembled, Have Agreed to the Following Order of Procession,” EAI, no. 45541 (1789). And for examples of “Highness,” see: Massachusetts Spy, October 29, 1789; and New-Hampshire Recorder, November 5, 1789. 110. [Oliver J. Holden], “Ode to the President of the United States on His Arrival at Boston,” EAI, no. 45496 (1789). For sample descriptions of presidential receptions in New England, see: Boston Gazette, October 26 and November 2, 1789; Massachusetts Centinel, October 28 and 31, 1789; Independent Chronicle, October 29, 1789; Massachusetts Spy, October 29, 1789; and New-Hampshire Recorder, November 5, 1789. For odes, see: “Ode, Upon the Arrival of the President of the United States,” Massachusetts Magazine, October 1789, APS; “Written at the Entry of the President,” Massachusetts Centinel, October 31, 1789; “Ode on the Election of George Washington, Esq. to the Office of President of America,” Boston Gazette,

222

NOTES TO PAGES 1 5 4 –1 5 6

October 26, 1789; “Valedictory Ode, Occasioned by the Departure of the President of Federal America, from the Capital of Massachusetts,” Massachusetts Magazine, November 1789, APS; “Ode First,” New Hampshire Spy, November 3, 1789. For songs, see: “Ode to the President of the United States, by a Lady,” music set by Hans Gram, Massachusetts Magazine, October 1789, APS; “Ode to Columbia’s Favourite Son” (sung by the Independent Musical Society, on the arrival of the president at the Triumphal Arch, in Boston, October 24, 1789), October 1789, Massachusetts Magazine, APS. For a speech, see: Joseph Buckminster, A.M., “A Discourse, Delivered at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, November 1, 1789. On Occasion of the President of the United States Honoring That Capital with a Visit,” EAI, no. 21718 (1789). 111. Augusta Chronicle, May 21, 1791; City Gazette, May 14, 1791. The place of the ball “with the largest number of ladies” was Richmond Academy in Augusta, GA. For additional descriptions of presidential receptions, see Augusta Chronicle, May 28, 1791; City Gazette, May 3, 5, 25, and June 3, 1791. 112. Federal Gazette, November 19, 1789 (also appeared in the Herald of Freedom, December 22, 1789). 113. Samuel Curwen to William Vans, January 19, 1790, Samuel Curwen Papers, Essex Institute; DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1896. 114. “IMPROMPTU on the Approach of the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES,” New-Hampshire Spy, October 31, 1789 (also appeared in the Herald of Freedom, November 6, 1789; Salem Mercury, November 10, 1789; New York Daily Gazette, November 12, 1789; Gazette of the United States, November 14, 1789; Federal Gazette, November 14, 1789; Cumberland Gazette, November 16, 1789; Pennsylvania Packet, November 17, 1789; Middlesex Gazette, November 21, 1789; Litchfield Monitor, November 24, 1789; Vermont Gazette, December 7, 1789; and American Museum; or, Universal Magazine, November 1789), APS. 115. Independent Chronicle, October 22, 1789 (also appeared in the New York Daily Advertiser, October 29, 1789; New York Daily Gazette, October 29, 1789; New York Journal, October 29, 1789; and Independent Gazetteer, November 2, 1789). 116. “IMPROMPTU ON TITLES,” Gazette of the United States, November 18, 1789 (also appeared in the Norwich Packet, November 27, 1789; Massachusetts Centinel, December 2, 1789; and New Hampshire Spy, December 4, 1789). Another local wit introduced the example of a lapdog named “Dragon” to mock those opposed to a strong title for the governor, and asked: “If he were to change the name of his lapdog from Trip to DRAGON . . . [would] the terrour of the name . . . deter them from entering his house?” Massachusetts Centinel, December 12, 1789. 117. The first impromptu (against exalted titles) was reprinted in eleven publications; the response impromptu was reprinted in three publications. 118. Ebenezer Hazard to Jeremy Belknap, November 21, 1789, Jeremy Belknap Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society; DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1761. 119. Herald of Freedom, January 1, 1790 (also appeared in the Cumberland Gazette, February 1, 1790). 120. Virginia Gazette, January 7, 1790. 121. City Gazette, May 3, 5, 14, and 25, and June 3, 1791; Augusta Chronicle, May 21 and 28, 1791; General Advertiser, April 22, 1791 (report from Fredericksburg, VA,

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 5 6 – 1 5 8

223

dated April 14, 1791). For “illustrious” in accounts of Washington’s birthday, see, for example: Salem Gazette, February 15, 1791; Columbian Centinel, March 12, 1791. For sacred references (“heaven” and “holy”) in birthday odes, see for example: Rev. Robert Thornton, “The Court of Apollo: Ode, on the Birth Day of the President” (from the Virginia Independent Chronicle), New York Weekly Museum, March 6, 1790, APS; “Seat of the Muses: Ode, on the President’s Birth Day,” Massachusetts Magazine, February 1791, APS; “The Volunteer Laureat, an Ode; For the Birth-Day of the President of the United States,” Gazette of the United States, February 23, 1791; and “Ode, for the Birth-Day of the President,” New York Journal, February 24, 1791. 122. “Excellency,” as well as “President of the United States,” appear in the letter from the state of Rhode Island announcing that it had ratified the Constitution; see New York Packet, June 3, 1790. “Excellency” appeared in a letter from Russian consul James Stimpson, discussing the new emperor of Morocco, Independent Chronicle, October 21, 1790; in a translation from the French National Gazette in the New York Daily Advertiser, June 12, 1790; in a translation from the Leyden Gazette in the General Advertiser, April 23, 1791; and in a report of a Society of the Cincinnati meeting, Gazette of the United States and New York Daily Advertiser, June 5, 1790. All were variously reprinted. See also discussion of titles for Washington in chapter 3. 123. For sample uses of “President of United States” or “President of the United States of America,” see Levee: Federal Gazette, December 7, 1790; Gazette of the United States, December 9, 1790 (also appeared in the Albany Gazette, December 16, 1790; New Hampshire Spy, December 22, 1790; and Essex Journal, December 29, 1790). Treaty: [Definitive Treaty of Peace with the Creek Nations of Indians], New York Packet, August 17, 1790. This item appeared extensively, including in the Federal Gazette, August 18, 1790; Pennsylvania Packet, August 18, 1790; Albany Gazette, August 23, 1790; Carlisle Gazette, August 25, 1790; and City Gazette, August 28, 1790. Proclamation: Pennsylvania Packet, April 17, 1790 (also appeared in the Newport Herald, April 22, 1790; Providence Gazette, April 24, 1790; and Carlisle Gazette, May 26, 1790). 124. For titles used for president during the southern tour, see: City Gazette, May 3, 5, 14, and 25, and June 3, 1791, and Augusta Chronicle, May 21 and 28, 1791. 125. General Advertiser, April 23, 1791 (also appeared in the New York Daily Advertiser, April 25, 1791; New York Packet, April 28, 1791; Independent Gazetteer, April 30, 1791; and Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser, May 11, 1791). 126. Federal Gazette, June 4, 1791 (also appeared in the General Advertiser, June 7, 1791; Norwich Packet, July 21, 1791; and Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser, July 28, 1791). 127. Gazette of the United States, November 11, 1789 (also appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet, November 18, 1789). 128. Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington (New York: A. A. Knopf, 2004), 190. 129. Glenn Phelps, George Washington and American Constitutionalism (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993), 194.

224

NOTES TO PAGES 1 6 0 –1 6 4

Conclusion

1. John M. Murrin, “A Roof without Walls: The Dilemma of American National Identity,” in Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American National Identity, ed. Richard Beeman, Stephen Botein, and Edward C. Carter II (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987), 333–48, published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. 2. S. W. Jackson, “A Young Englishman Reports on the New Nation: Edward Thornton to James Bland Burges, 1791–1793,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 18, no. 1 (1961): 110–11, 121. See also the comments of a disgruntled Catherine Few (wife of Georgia senator William Few), who stayed in New York with her children after Congress moved to Philadelphia, missed her husband, and censured Washington “with all his parade.” Catherine Few to William Few, January 26, 1791, William and Catherine Few Collection, University of Georgia. 3. Bradford Perkins, “A Diplomat’s Wife in Philadelphia: Letters of Henrietta Liston, 1796–1800,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 11, no. 4 (1954): 608–9; Kenneth R. Bowling, “The Federal Government and the Republican Court Move to Philadelphia, November 1790–March 1791,” in Neither Separate nor Equal: Congress in the 1790’s, ed. Kenneth R. Bowling and Donald R. Kennon (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2000), 3–33. 4. Carey’s United States’ Recorder, June 5, 12, 21, and 26, 1798. 5. Aurora General Advertiser, July 28, 1798 (also appeared in the Time Piece, August 1, 1798). 6. Elbridge Gerry to John Wendell, July 10, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:997–98; Elbridge Gerry to Mr. Eliot, June 21, 1800, as quoted in George Athan Billias, Elbridge Gerry: Founding Father and Republican Statesman (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976), 302. See also Louise Burnham Dunbar, A Study of “Monarchical”Tendencies in the United States, from 1776 to 1801, vol. 10, no. 1 (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1923); James Roger Sharp, American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), 7–8, 226–27. 7. Catherine Allgor, Parlor Politics: In Which the Ladies of Washington Help Build a City and a Government (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2000). 8. [Eleanor-Francois-Elie] Comte de Moustier to [Armand-Marc] Comte de Montmorin, June 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:734. For an examination of aspirational impulses, see Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities (New York: Vintage, 1993). 9. Jack D. Warren Jr., “In the Shadow of Washington: John Adams as Vice President,” in John Adams and the Founding of the Republic, ed. Richard Alan Ryerson (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2001), 117–41, quotes on 134 and 128. Warren details the rocky Washington-Adams association, which dated back to the latter’s revolutionary-era criticism of the commander in chief. 10. DHFFC-WMD 9:6; John Adams to Abigail Adams, December 19, 1793, AFP; John Adams to John Quincy Adams, July 9, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 16:983. 11. John Adams to William Cushing, September 8, 1789, DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1486. Cushing, chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court from 1777 to 1789, was named to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1789, where he served until his death in 1810. DHFFC-Correspondence 17:1783.

NOT ES TO PA G ES 1 6 4 – 1 6 8

225

12. Willard Sterne Randall, Thomas Jefferson: A Life (New York: Henry Holt, 1993), 565 (“ambivalent pragmatism”); Jeremy D. Bailey, Thomas Jefferson and Executive Power (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 259–61 (all other quotes). See also R. B. Bernstein, Thomas Jefferson (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 191– 98; Drew R. McCoy, The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 195– 208, published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA; Peter S. Onuf, Jefferson’s Empire: The Language of American Nationhood (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000). 13. Brian Balogh, A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth Century America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 117, 114, 171, 11. My comment about the doubling of Jefferson’s power via the Louisiana Purchase was inspired by Merrill Peterson, who observed that Jefferson doubled “his political usefulness to the generations . . . by seeming to recommend one thing in theory and another thing in practice.” Merrill D. Peterson, The Jefferson Image in the American Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960), 444–45. Appendix

1. DHFFC 1:45.

B i b l i og raphy

Primary Sources Manuscripts: Published Abbot, William Wright, and Dorothy Twohig, eds. The Papers of George Washington: Retirement Series. 4 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998–1999. ——. The Papers of George Washington: Confederation Series. 6 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992–1997. Abbot, William Wright, Dorothy Twohig, and Philander D. Chase, eds. The Papers of George Washington: Colonial Series. 10 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983–1995. Abbot, William Wright, Dorothy Twohig, Philander D. Chase, David R. Hoth, Christine Sternberg Patrick, and Theodore J. Crackel, eds. The Papers of George Washington: Presidential Series. 15 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1987–. Adams, Charles F., ed. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author. Boston: Little, Brown, 1854. Adams, Herbert B. The Life and Writings of Jared Sparks. 2 vols. Boston: H. O. Houghton, 1893. Baker, William Spohn. Medallic Portraits of Washington. Philadelphia: Robert M. Lindsay, 1885. ——. Character Portraits of Washington as Delineated by Historians and Divines, Selected and Arranged in Chronological Order with Biographical Notes and References. Philadelphia: Robert M. Lindsay, 1887. ——. Bibliotheca Washingtoniana: A Descriptive List of the Biographies and Biographical Sketches of George Washington. Philadelphia: Robert M. Lindsay, 1889. Ballagh, James Curtis, ed. The Letters of Richard Henry Lee. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1914. Bartlett, John Russell, ed. Records of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England. Providence, RI: Providence Press Company, 1865. Becker, Robert A., Gordon DenBoer, and Merrill Jensen, eds. The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections, 1788–1790. 4 vols. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1976. Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Kenneth R. Bowling, Linda Grant De Pauw, William Charles diGiacomantonio, and Helen E. Veit, eds. Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789–March 3, 227

228

B I B L I O GRAPHY

1791. Vols. 1–8, 10–14. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972–1995. Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Kenneth R. Bowling, Helen E. Veit, and William Charles diGiacomantonio, eds. The Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789–March 3, 1791—Correspondence. Vols. 15–20. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004, 2011. Biddle, Alexander. Old Family Letters. Series A. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1892. Bowling, Kenneth R., and Helen E. Veit, eds. The Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789–March 3, 1791—The Diary of William Maclay and Other Notes on Senate Debates. Vol. 9. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Brunhouse, Robert L., ed. David Ramsay, 1749–1815: Selections from His Writings. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, 55. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1965. Butterfield, Lyman H., ed. Letters of Benjamin Rush. 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, for the American Philosophical Society, 1951. Carey, George W., ed. The Political Writings of John Adams. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000. Davies, Samuel. “Religion and Patriotism: The Constituents of a Good Soldier.” In Sermons by the Rev. Samuel Davies, A.M., President of the College of New Jersey. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1864. Dwight, Timothy. The Conquest of Canaan: A Poem in Eleven Books. Reprint of 1788 ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1970. Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Rev. ed. 5 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966–1987. Henry, William Wirt. Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches. 3 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. Hoadly, Charles J., ed. The Public Records of the State of Connecticut, from October, 1776, to February, 1778, Inclusive with the Journal of the Council of Safety from October 11, 1776, to May 6, 1778, Inclusive, and an Appendix. Hartford, CT: Case, Lockwood and Brainard, 1894. Hobson, Charles F., Robert A. Rutland, and William M. E. Rachal et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, Congressional Series. Vols. 12–13. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979–1981. Hume, David. Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects. London: T. Cadell, 1788. ——. The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688. 6 vols. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1983. Based on 1778 edition. Jackson, S. W. “A Young Englishman Reports on the New Nation: Edward Thornton to James Bland Burges, 1791–1793.” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 18, no. 1 (1961): 85–121. Kaminski, John P., Merrill Jensen, Gaspare J. Saladino, and Richard Leffler, eds. The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Vols. 1–10, 13–22. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1976–2009. Kaminski, John P., and Richard Leffler, eds. Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate over the Ratification of the Constitution. 1st ed. Madison, WI: Madison

BI BL I O G R A P HY

229

House, 1989. Published for the Center for the Study of the American Constitution. Kenyon, Cecelia M., ed. The Antifederalists. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966. Marder, Daniel, ed. A Hugh Henry Brackenridge Reader, 1770–1815. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1970. Maryland, State of. “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1742: A Proclamation by His Excellency Thomas Bladen Esqr Governor and Commander in Chief in and over the Province of Maryland.” Vol. 28. Archives of Maryland, 1742. ——. “Proceedings of the Convention of the Province of Maryland, Held at the City of Annapolis, on Wednesday the Eighth of May, 1776.” Vol. 3145. Archives of Maryland, 1776. Mitchell, Stewart, ed. New Letters of Abigail Adams, 1788–1801. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947. Perkins, Bradford. “A Diplomat’s Wife in Philadelphia: Letters of Henrietta Liston, 1796–1800.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 11, no. 4 (1954): 592–632. Plowden, Edmund. The Commentaries or Reports of Edmund Plowden, of the MiddleTemple, Esq. 2 vols. London: S. Brooke, Paternoster-Row, 1816. Rossiter, Clinton, ed. The Federalist Papers—Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay. New York: Penguin, 1961. Rulau, Russell, George Fuld, and George J. Fuld. Medallic Portraits of Washington. Iola, WI: Krause, 1999. Saunders, William L., ed. The Colonial Records of North Carolina. Vol. 8, 1769– 1771. Raleigh, NC: Josephus Daniels, Printer to the State, 1890. Schutz, John A., and Douglass Adair, eds. The Spur of Fame: Dialogues of John Adams and Benjamin Rush, 1805–1813. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1966. Syrett, Harold C., and Jacob E. Cooke, eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Vol. 5. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Taylor, Robert J., ed. Massachusetts, Colony to Commonwealth: Documents on the Formation of Its Constitution, 1775–1780. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, VA. Thorpe, Francis Newton, ed. The Federal and State Constitution, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States,Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America. 7 vols. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909. Weitenkampf, Frank. Political Caricature in the United States in Separately Published Cartoons: An Annotated List. New York: New York Public Library, 1953. Wills, Garry, ed. The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. New York: Bantam Books, 1982.

Manuscripts: Unpublished Abigail Adams Papers, American Antiquarian Society. Adams Family Manuscript Trust, Massachusetts Historical Society.

230

B I B L I O GRAPHY

Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive, Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/. George Washington Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Margaret Lowther Page. Journal and Poems of Margaret Lowther Page, Special Collections Research Center, Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. Mass. Const. chap. 2, § 1, art. I and § 2, art. I. http://www.mass.gov/legis/const .htm. Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America. Francis L. Hawk and General Convention Collection of Early Episcopal Church Manuscripts. Reprinted by permission of the Archives of the Episcopal Church. Robert Livingston Papers, New York Historical Society. Sedgwick Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. Shippen Family Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Tench Coxe Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Thatcher Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. Tucker-Coleman Collection, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Wayne State University Library, Detroit, MI. William and Catherine Few Collection, University of Georgia, Athens.

Printed Materials: Newspapers and Magazines Note on newspaper sources and research method: The newspaper citations reflect a double and, when possible, a triple check of the databases utilized. The two main databases used were America’s Historical Newspapers, including Early American Newspapers, Series 1–3; 20th Century American Newspapers, Series 1, 1690–1991 (online) and the extensive (and remarkable) newspaper card file and microfiche library of the First Federal Congress Project, Washington, DC. I also used the First Federal Congress Public Opinion Database—A Project of the First Federal Congress Project (online), in progress. Magazine sources are from American Periodicals Series Online, 1740–1900, a digital database of magazine and journal articles.

Connecticut American Mercury, Hartford Connecticut Courant, Hartford Connecticut Gazette, New London Connecticut Journal, New Haven Litchfield Monitor, Litchfield Middlesex Gazette, Middletown New-Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine, New Haven Norwich Packet, Norwich

BI BL I O G R A P HY

Delaware Delaware Gazette, Wilmington

Georgia Augusta Chronicle, Augusta Georgia Gazette, Savannah

Maine Cumberland Gazette, Portland

Mary land Maryland Gazette, Baltimore Maryland Journal, Baltimore

Massachusetts American Herald, Worcester Boston Evening Post, Boston Boston Gazette, Boston Columbian Centinel, Boston Courier de Boston, Boston Essex Journal, Newburyport Hampshire Gazette, Northampton Herald of Freedom, Boston Historical Magazine, Boston (nineteenth century) Independent Chronicle, Boston Massachusetts Centinel, Boston Massachusetts Magazine, Boston Massachusetts Spy, Worcester Mechanics’ Magazine, Boston (nineteenth century) Salem Gazette, Salem Salem Mercury, Salem Western Star, Stockbridge

New Hampshire Concord Herald, Concord Freeman’s Oracle, Exeter New-Hampshire Gazette, Portsmouth New-Hampshire Recorder, Keene New-Hampshire Spy, Portsmouth

231

232

B I B L I O GRAPHY

New Jersey New-Jersey Gazette, Burlington New-Jersey Journal, Elizabethtown Political Intelligencer, New Brunswick

New York Albany Gazette, Albany Albany Journal, Albany Albany Register, Albany Diary or Loudon’s Register, New York Federal Herald, Lansingburgh Gazette of the United States, New York Impartial Gazetteer, and Saturday Evening Post, New York Independent Gazette, New York Independent Journal, New York New York Daily Advertiser, New York New York Daily Gazette, New York New York Journal, New York New York Morning Post, New York New York Packet, New York New York Weekly Museum, New York Poughkeepsie Country Journal, Poughkeepsie Time Piece, New York

North Carolina State Gazette of North Carolina, Edenton

Pennsylvania American Museum, Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, Philadelphia Carey’s United States Recorder, Philadelphia Carlisle Gazette, Carlisle Columbian Magazine, Philadelphia Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal, Philadelphia General Advertiser, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Philadelphia Mail; or, ClayPoole’s Daily Advertiser, Philadelphia Pennsylvania Evening Post, Philadelphia Pennsylvania Herald, York Pennsylvania Journal, Philadelphia

BI BL I O G R A P HY

233

Pennsylvania Mercury, Philadelphia Pennsylvania Packet, Philadelphia

Rhode Island Newport Herald, Newport Providence Gazette, Providence United States Chronicle, Providence

South Carolina Charleston Evening Gazette, Charleston City Gazette, Charleston Columbian Herald, Charleston South Carolina Weekly Gazette, Charleston State Gazette of South Carolina, Charleston

Vermont Vermont Gazette, Bennington Vermont Journal, Windsor

Virginia Norfolk and Portsmouth Chronicle, Norfolk Virginia Centinel, Winchester Virginia Gazette, Alexandria Virginia Gazette, Winchester Virginia Independent Chronicle, Richmond

Other Printed Materials The following are from Early American Imprints, Series I: Evans, 1639–1800, a digital database of books, pamphlets, and broadside published in the United States; based on Charles Evans’s American Bibliography and Roger Bristol’s supplement. Barlow, Joel. “The Vision of Columbus: A Poem in Nine Books.” No. 20220 (1787). Buckminster, Joseph, A.M. “A Discourse, Delivered at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, November 1, 1789. On Occasion of the President of the United States honoring that Capital with a Visit.” No. 21718 (1789). Church, Edward. “The Dangerous Vice: A Fragment. Addressed to All Whom It May Concern. By a Gentleman, Formerly of Boston.” No. 21736 (1789). “The Committees of Both Houses of Congress, Appointed to Take Order for Conducting the Ceremonial of the Formal Reception, &c. of the President

234

B I B L I O GRAPHY

of the United States . . . Have Agreed to the Following Order.” No. 45671 (1789). Coxe, Tench. “Observations on the Agriculture, Manufactures and Commerce of the United States.” No. 21774 (September 1789). Davies, Samuel. “Religion and Patriotism the Constituents of a Good Soldier. A Sermon Preached to Captain Overton’s Independent Company of Volunteers, Raised in Hanover County, Virginia, August 17, 1755. By Samuel Davies, A.M., Minister of the Gospel There.” No. 7403 (1755). Dwight, Timothy. “The Conquest of Canaan: A Poem in Eleven Books.” No. 18996 (1785). “The Following ODE, on the Birth-day of His Excellency GENERAL WASHINGTON, Celebrated by the ADOPTED SONS, at the Pennsylvania Coffee-House in Philadelphia, Was Composed by a Member of That Society.” No. 19650 (1786). Freneau, Philip Morin, and Hugh Henry Brackenridge. “A Poem, on the Rising Glory of America; Being an Exercise Delivered at the Public Commencement at Nassau-Hall, September 25, 1771.” No. 12398 (1771). Gaine, Hugh. “Gaine’s New-York Pocket Almanack, for the Year 1790.” No. 21973 (1789). [Holden, Oliver J.] “Ode to the President of the United States on His Arrival at Boston.” No. 45496 (1789). Langdon, Samuel. “The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States. A Sermon, Preached at Concord, in the State of New Hampshire; before the Honorable General Court at the Annual Election, June 5, 1788.” No. 21192 (1788). Low, Samuel. “Ode, to Be Sung on the Arrival of the President of the United States.” No. 45505 (1789). “Newbury-Port, October 28, 1789. As This Town Is on Friday Next to Be Honored with a Visit from ‘the Man Who Unites All Hearts,’ the Illustrious President of the United States, the Inhabitants Thereof, This Day in Town Meeting Assembled, Have Agreed to the Following Order of Procession.” No. 45541 (1789). Smith, William. “An Oration, Delivered, January 22, 1773, before the Patron, Vice-Presidents and Members of the American Philosophical Society, Held at Philadelphia, for Promoting Useful Knowledge.” No. 13022 (1773). Stearns, Samuel, or Ezra Gleason. “Thomas’s Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode-Island, Newhampshire and Vermont Almanack, with an Ephemeris, for the Year of Our Lord 1790.” No. 21857 (November 1789). Stiles, Ezra. “The United States Elevated to Glory and Honor. A Sermon, Preached before His Excellency Jonathan Trumbull, Esq. L.L.D., Governor and Commander in Chief, and the Honorable the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, Convened at Hartford, at the Anniversary Election, May 8th, 1783.” No. 18198 (1783). West, Benjamin. “Bickerstaff ’s Boston Almanack, or Federal Calendar, for 1789.” No. 21592 (1788).

BI BL I O G R A P HY

235

Secondary Sources Abzug, Robert H. Cosmos Crumbling: American Reform and the Religious Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Albanese, Catherine L. Sons of the Fathers:The Civil Religion of the American Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1976. ——. America: Religions and Religion. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2006. Allgor, Catherine. Parlor Politics: In Which the Ladies of Washington Help Build a City and a Government. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2000. Amar, Akhil Reed. America’s Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House, 2005. Archer, Jayne Elisabeth, Elizabeth Goldring, and Sarah Knight, eds. The Progresses, Pageants, and Entertainments of Queen Elizabeth I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992. Balogh, Brian. A Government Out of Sight:The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth Century America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Banning, Lance. The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. Barnett, James H. “The Easter Festival: A Study in Cultural Change.” American Sociological Review 14, no. 1 (1949): 62–70. Beeman, Richard R. The Varieties of Political Experience in Eighteenth-Century America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Bellah, Robert N. “Civil Religion in America.” Daedalus 96, no. 1 (1967): 1–21. ——. “Comment: Twenty Years after Bellah: Whatever Happened to American Civil Religion?” Sociological Analysis 50, no. 2 (1989): 147. Bendix, Reinhard. “Sacred and Secular Foundations of Kingship.” In Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule, 21–60. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. Bernstein, Richard B. “George Washington’s Inaugural Trip to New York.” In Well Begun: Chronicles of the Early National Period, edited by Stephen L. Schechter and Richard B. Bernstein, 39–43. Albany: New York State Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 1989. ——. Thomas Jefferson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Bickford, Charlene Bangs, and Kenneth R. Bowling. Birth of the Nation:The First Federal Congress, 1789–1791. Madison, WI: Madison House, 1989. Billias, George Athan. Elbridge Gerry: Founding Father and Republican Statesman. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. Bloch, Marc. The Royal Touch: Monarchies and Miracles in France and England. Translated by J. E. Anderson. New York: Dorset Press, 1961. Bowen, Catherine Drinker. Miracle at Philadelphia:The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966. Bowling, Kenneth R. “Politics in the First Congress, 1789–1791.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1968.

236

B I B L I O GRAPHY

——. “A Tub to the Whale: The Founding Fathers and Adoption of the Federal Bill of Rights.” Journal of the Early Republic 8 (Fall 1988). ——. “New York City, Capital of the United States, 1785–1790.” In World of the Founders: New York Communities in the Federal Period, edited by Stephen L. Schechter and Wendel Tripp, 1–23. Albany: New York State Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 1990. –——. “The Federal Government and the Republican Court Move to Philadelphia, November 1790–March 1791.” In Neither Separate nor Equal: Congress in the 1790’s, edited by Kenneth R. Bowling and Donald R. Kennon. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2000. ——. Peter Charles L’Enfant:Vision, Honor, and Male Friendship in the Early American Republic. Washington, DC: George Washington University, 2002. Brady, Patricia. Martha Washington: An American Life. New York: Viking Penguin, 2005. Breen, T. H. “Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution: Revisions Once More in Need of Revising.” Journal of American History 84, no. 1 (1997): 13–39. ——. Tobacco Culture:The Mentality of the Great Tidewater Planters on the Eve of Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Bruce, William Cabell. John Randolph of Roanoke, 1773–1833. 2 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1922. Bryan, William Alfred. George Washington in American Literature, 1775–1865. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1952. Burgess, Glenn. “The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered.” English Historical Review 107, no. 425 (1992): 837–61. Bushman, Richard L. The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life. New York: Penguin, 2010. Cherry, Conrad, ed. God’s New Israel: Religious Interpretations of American Destiny. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. Chinard, Gilbert. Honest John Adams. Boston: Little, Brown, 1933. Clark, J. C. D. English Society, 1660–1832. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Colbourn, Trevor, ed. Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair. rev. ed. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1998. ——. The Lamp of Experience:Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1998. Colley, Linda. Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992. ——. “The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty and the British Nation, 1760–1820,” Past and Present, 102 (1984): 94–129. Cooke, Jacob E. Tench Coxe and the Early Republic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. Cornell, Saul. “Aristocracy Assailed: The Ideology of Backcountry AntiFederalism.” Journal of American History 76, no. 4 (1990): 1148–72.

BI BL I O G R A P HY

237

——. The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788–1828. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999. Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. Cunliffe, Marcus. George Washington: Man and Monument. New York and Toronto: New American Library, 1958. De Lancey, Edward F., George H. Moore, and William Libbey, eds. The Burghers of New Amsterdam and the Freemen of New York, 1675–1866. New York: New York Historical Society, 1886. Dresner, Lisa M. “Finding British Statutes, Bills, and Statutory Instruments.” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law Library, Reference Department, 2001. Dunbar, Louise Burnham. A Study of “Monarchical”Tendencies in the United States, from 1776 to 1801. Vol. 10, No. 1. Urbana: University of Illinois, Studies in the Social Sciences, 1923. Dunlap, William. History of the New Netherlands, Province of New York, and State of New York. 2 vols. New York: Burt Franklin, 1839; reprinted 1970. Edie, Carolyn A. “The Public Face of Royal Ritual: Sermons, Medals, and Civic Ceremony in Later Stuart Coronations.” Huntington Library Quarterly 53, no. 4 (1990): 311–36. Elkins, Stanley M., and Eric L. McKitrick. The Age of Federalism:The Early American Republic, 1788–1800. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Ellis, Joseph J. Passionate Sage:The Character and Legacy of John Adams. New York: Norton, 2001. ——. Founding Brothers:The Revolutionary Generation. 1st ed. New York: Vintage Books, 2002. ——. His Excellency: George Washington. New York: A. A. Knopf, 2004. Erler, Mary C. “Palm Sunday Prophets and Processions and Eucharistic Controversy.” Renaissance Quarterly 48, no. 1 (1995): 58–81. Estes, Todd. The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evolution of Early American Political Culture. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006. Farrand, Max. The Framing of the Constitution of the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1913. Ferling, John E. The First of Men: A Life of George Washington. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988. ——. John Adams: A Life. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992. Flexner, James Thomas. George Washington in the American Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967. ——. George Washington and the New Nation, 1783–1793. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970. ——. Washington:The Indispensable Man. Boston: Little, Brown, 1969. Freeman, Douglas Southall. George Washington: A Biography. 7 vols. New York: Scribner, 1948. Freeman, Joanne B. “Dueling as Politics: Reinterpreting the Burr-Hamilton Duel.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 53, no. 2 (1996): 289–318. ——. Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001.

238

B I B L I O GRAPHY

Gibson, Alan. Interpreting the Founding: Guide to the Enduring Debates over the Origins and Foundations of the American Republic. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006. ——. Understanding the Founding:The Crucial Questions. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007. Gilliam, Charles Edgar. “Mr in Virginia Records before 1776.” William and Mary Quarterly 19, no. 2 (1939): 142–45. Greene, Jack P. Peripheries and Center: Constitutional Development in the Extended Polities of the British Empire and the United States, 1607–1788. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986. Griswold, Rufus W. The Republican Court; or, American Society in the Days of Washington. New York: D. Appleton, 1854. Handler, Edward. America and Europe in the Political Thought of John Adams. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964. Hart, Albert Bushnell. Formation of the Union, 1750–1829. New York: Longmans, Greene, 1897. Hart, James. The American Presidency in Action, 1789: A Study in Constitutional History. New York: Macmillan, 1948. Hershkowitz, Leo. “Sentry Boxes for George Washington, New York, 1789–90.” Unpublished paper, 1–13. Higham, John. “The Reorientation of American Culture in the 1890s.” In Hanging Together: Unity and Diversity in American Culture, edited by Carl J. Guarneri. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Holborn, Guy. Butterworths Legal Research Guide. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Holton, Woody. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007. Howe, John R. The Changing Political Thought of John Adams. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966. Hume, David. Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects. London: Printed for T. Cadell, 1788. ——. The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688. 6 vols. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1983; based on the 1778 ed. Hutson, James. “John Adams’ Title Campaign.” New England Quarterly 41, no. 1 (1968): 30–39. Inglehart, Ronald. “Culture and Democracy.” In Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, edited by Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Irvin, Benjamin H. Clothed in Robes of Sovereignty:The Continental Congress and the People Out of Doors. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Jameson, J. Franklin. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1926. Jensen, Merrill. The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation, 1781–1789. New York: Knopf, 1950. ——. The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774–1781. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970.

BI BL I O G R A P HY

239

Kaminski, John P., and Jill Adair McCaughan. A Great and Good Man: George Washington in the Eyes of His Contemporaries. Madison, WI: Madison House, 1989. Kantorowicz, Ernst Hartwig. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957. Ketcham, Ralph. Presidents above Party:The First American Presidency, 1789–1829. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. Kornblith, Gary J., and John M. Murrin. “The Making and Unmaking of an American Ruling Class.” In Beyond the American Revolution: Explorations in the History of American Radicalism, edited by Alfred F. Young. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1993. Labunski, Richard. James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Landy, Marc, and Sidney M. Milkis. Presidential Greatness. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2000. Langford, Paul. Public Life and the Propertied Englishman, 1689–1798. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Leibiger, Stuart Eric. Founding Friendship: George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic: Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999. Longmore, Paul K. The Invention of George Washington. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Lossing, Benson J. Our Country: A Household History of the United States for All Readers, from the Discovery of America to the Present Time. 2 vols. New York: Amies, 1877. Maier, Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Vintage Books, 1997. ——. Ratification:The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010. Main, Jackson Turner. The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781–1788. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, VA. Marston, Jerrilyn Greene. King and Congress:The Transfer of Political Legitimacy, 1774–1776. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987. Mathisen, James A. “Twenty Years after Bellah: Whatever Happened to American Civil Religion?” Sociological Analysis 50, no. 2 (1989): 129–46. Mays, David John. Edmund Pendleton, 1721–1803: A Biography. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952. McConville, Brendan. The King’s Three Faces:The Rise and Fall of Royal America, 1688–1776. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006. Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. McCoy, Drew R. The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA.

240

B I B L I O GRAPHY

McCullough, David G. John Adams. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001. McDonald, Forrest. The Presidency of George Washington. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1974. ——. Novus Ordo Seclorum:The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985. McGaughy, J. Kent. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia: A Portrait of an American Revolutionary. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004. Mead, Sidney E. “The Theology of the Republic and the Orthodox Mind.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 44, no. 1 (1976): 105–13. Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause:The American Revolution, 1763–1789. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Milkis, Sidney M., and Michael Nelson. The American Presidency: Origins and Development, 1776–2011. 6th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2012. Miller, John Chester. The Federalist Era, 1789–1801. New York: Harper, 1960. Morgan, Edmund Sears. The Genius of George Washington. New York: Norton, 1980. George Rogers Clark Lecture, 3. ——. Inventing the People:The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America. New York: Norton, 1988. ——. Benjamin Franklin. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. Murrell, William B. A History of American Graphic Humor, vol.1. New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1933. Murrin, John M. “A Roof without Walls: The Dilemma of American National Identity.” In Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American National Identity, edited by Richard Beeman, Stephen Botein, and Edward C. Carter II, 333–48. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987. Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. Nagel, Paul C. The Lees of Virginia: Seven Generations of an American Family. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Newman, Simon P. Parades and the Politics of the Street: Festive Culture in the Early American Republic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, Early American Studies, 1997. Nickel, Helmut. “And Behold, a White Horse . . . Observations on the Colors of the Horses of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 12 (1977): 179–83. Onuf, Peter S. Jefferson’s Empire: The Language of American Nationhood. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000. Palmer, John McAuley. General Von Steuben. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1937. Palmer, Robert Roswell. The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959. Pasley, Jeffrey L. “The Tyranny of Printers”: Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001. Pasley, Jeffrey L., Andrew W. Robertson, and David Waldstreicher. Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

BI BL I O G R A P HY

241

Pestana, Carla Gardina. “The Quaker Executions as Myth and History.” Journal of American History 80, no. 2 (1993): 441–69. Peterson, Merrill D. The Jefferson Image in the American Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960. Phelps, Glenn. George Washington and American Constitutionalism. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1993. Prochaska, Frank. The Eagle and the Crown: Americans and the British Monarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Rakove, Jack N. The Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress. New York: Knopf, 1979. ——. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1996. Randall, Willard Sterne. Thomas Jefferson: A Life. New York: Henry Holt, 1993. Risjord, Norman K., comp. The Early American Party System. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Rodgers, Daniel T. “Republicanism: The Career of a Concept.” Journal of American History 79, no. 1 (1992): 11–38. Royster, Charles. A Revolutionary People at War:The Continental Army and American Character, 1775–1783. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. Ryerson, Richard Alan. “ ‘Like a Hare before the Hunters’: John Adams and the Idea of Republican Monarchy.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 3rd ser., 107 (1995): 16–29. Schiff, Stacy. A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France, and the Birth of America. New York: Henry Holt, 2005. Schmitt, Gary J., and Robert H. Webking. “Revolutionaries, Antifederalists, and Federalists: Comments on Gordon Wood’s Understanding of the American Founding.” Political Science Reviewer 9 (1979): 195–229. Schwartz, Barry. “The Character of Washington: A Study in Republican Culture.” American Quarterly (Summer, 1976): 202–22. ——. George Washington:The Making of an American Symbol. New York: Free Press, 1987. Scott, Pamela. Temple of Liberty: Building the Capitol for a New Nation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Sharp, James Roger. American Politics in the Early Republic:The New Nation in Crisis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993. Shaw, Peter. The Character of John Adams. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. Silverman, Kenneth. A Cultural History of the American Revolution: Painting, Music, Literature, and the Theatre in the Colonies and the United States from the Treaty of Paris to the Inauguration of George Washington, 1763–1789. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976. Smith, Page. John Adams. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1962. Smith, Richard Norton. Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993.

242

B I B L I O GRAPHY

Smylie, James H. “American Clergymen and the Constitution of the United States of America, 1781–1796.” ThD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1958. Staloff, Darren. Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson:The Politics of Enlightenment and the American Founding. New York: Hill and Wang, 2005. Stout, Harry S. The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Taylor, Alan. “From Fathers to Friends of the People: Political Personas in the Early Republic.” Journal of the Early Republic 11, no. 4 (1991): 465–91. ——. William Cooper’s Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early American Republic. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1995. Teute, Fredrika J., and David S. Shields. “The Republican Court and the Historiography of a Women’s Domain in the Public Sphere.” Unpublished paper, Society for the History of the Early Republic—Annual Meeting, Boston, 1994. ——. “The Confederation Court.” Unpublished paper, North American Society of Court Studies Conference, Boston, 2000. Thompson, Mary V. “In the Hands of a Good Providence”: Religion in the Life of George Washington. Alexandria, VA: Mount Vernon Ladies Association, 2008. Tillson, Albert H. Gentry and Common Folk: Political Culture on a Virginia Frontier, 1740–1789. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1991. Trees, Andrew S. The Founding Fathers and the Politics of Character. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Trees, Andy. “John Adams and the Problem of Virtue.” Journal of the Early Republic 21, no. 3 (2001): 393–412. ——. “The Diary of William Maclay and Political Manners in the First Congress.” Pennsylvania History 69, no. 2 (2002): 210–29. Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher. A Midwife’s Tale:The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785–1812. New York: Vintage Books, 1990. Waldstreicher, David. “Federalism, the Styles of Politics, and the Politics of Style.” In Federalists Reconsidered, edited by Doron Ben-Atar and Barbara B. Oberg. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998. ——. In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes:The Making of American Nationalism, 1776– 1820. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA. Warner, Michael. The Letters of the Republic: Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-Century America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. Warren, Jack D., Jr. “In the Shadow of Washington: John Adams as Vice President.” In John Adams and the Founding of the Republic, edited by Richard Alan Ryerson. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2001. White, Leonard D. The Federalists: A Study in Administrative History. New York: Macmillan, 1948. Wiencek, Henry. An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003. Wills, Garry. Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984. ——. James Madison. New York: Henry Holt, 2002.

BI BL I O G R A P HY

243

Wilson, John F. Public Religion in American Culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979. Withington, Robert. “The Early ‘Royal-Entry.’ ” PMLA 32, no. 4 (1917): 616–23. Wood, Gordon S. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, VA. ——. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1992. ——. Revolutionary Characters:What Made the Founders Different. New York: Penguin, 2006. ——. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Young, Alfred F. The Democratic Republicans of New York:The Origins, 1763–1797. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1967. Zunder, Theodore A. “Noah Webster and the Conquest of Canaan.” American Literature 1, no. 2 (1929): 200–202.

In dex

Adams, Abigail, 118–19, 139, 143, 145–48; titles for, 115, 206n24 Adams, John, 3–4, 25–27, 41, 66–71, 146–47, 163–64; on adulation of Washington, 56; advice on presidential etiquette, 117; Antifederalist leanings, 67–71; arrival in New York, 84–85; confrontations with Maclay, 95–99; “Dangerous Vice,” 9, 132, 143–48, 158, 163; as diplomat, 25–26, 67; dispute with Edward Church, 145–46; fear of aristocratic cabals in Senate, 3–4, 57, 67–71, 129, 133, 137–38, 164; “His Rotundity,” 8, 101, 132, 163; and Lee-Deane affair, 70; limited monarchy, 25, 136–39, 142; on national security, 26–27; on preference for presidential title, 14, 25–27, 135–38, 204n131; preference for specific titles, 25–27, 108, 204n131; presidency of, 162–63; public opinion and criticism of, 8–9, 101, 104, 132–33, 135, 138–43, 146–47, 150, 158; relationship with Benjamin Rush, 135–37; relationship with George Washington, 117, 132, 150–51, 163; relationship with Richard Henry Lee, 66–67, 70–71; relationship with Roger Sherman, 137–38; support for exalted presidential title, 3–4, 25–27, 56, 68–71, 86, 93, 96–99, 101, 106, 107–8, 135–39, 163–64; titles for, 25, 81, 162; vice presidency, impact on, 163–64 Adams, Samuel, 66 “Admirer but not Worshipper of great Men,” 154 Alien and Sedition Acts, 162 “American” (possibly one essayist), 123–24, 127–28 “American Citizen” (Tench Coxe), 58–59, 63 American Court, 118, 119. See also Republican Court

“Americanus,” 155 “American Whig,” 81 Ames, Fisher, 5–6, 87, 90, 135, 146, 195n78, 219n78 “Amicus,” 129 anarchy, 113–15 “Answer Impromptu by P, The,” 139 Antifederalists: on Adams’s Defence, 67; as elites, 61–62; fear of an elective King, 58; fear of aristocratic cabals in Senate, 61–62, 68, 159–60; fear of political corruption in presidency, 3, 60; and Federalists, 8, 64, 75; serving in First Federal Congress, 64–65; on titles language in Constitution, 23–24. See also populism “Anti-titulus,” 155 “Argos,” 114 aristocracy: concerns about, 59–66, 68–77, 114–15, 125, 130–31, 143–45. See also court culture; Great Britain; pageantry and pomp in government —types of: cabals/aristocracy of the Senate, 3, 57, 59–66, 68–77, 87–88, 99, 107, 133–34, 137–38, 159–60, 164, 192n31; hereditary, 23–25, 33, 58–59, 60, 63, 71, 73–74, 99, 111, 114, 129–30; natural, 61–62, 68, 72, 76 Armstrong, John, 48–50, 68, 79 Articles of Confederation, 10, 19–20 Bache, Richard, 94 Bailyn, Bernard, 4 Ballard, Martha, 15–16 Balogh, Brian, 11–12 Baptists, 18, 55 Barlow, Joel, 40–41 Barton, William, 27–29, 83, 153 Belknap, Jeremy, 146 Berkeley, George, 41 Bingham, William, 91

245

246

I NDE X

Bladen, Thomas, 17 Bland, Theodorick, 87, 192n36, 195n77 body politic, 32–33. See also monarchy/ monarchical sovereignty; popular sovereignty, two bodies of; third body of sovereignty Bolingbroke, Henry St. John, 34 Boudinot, Elias, 51, 55 Bowen, Jabez, 26, 135 Brackenridge, Hugh Henry, 42 Bradford, William, 79 broadcloth, 94, 116, 130 Bryan, George (collaboration as “Old Whig”), 190n1 Bryan, Samuel, 58, 63. See also “Centinel” Buckminster, Joseph, 186n86 Butler, Pierce, 19 cabals. See under aristocracy Cadwalader, Lambert, 94, 107, 108 “Caroliniensis,” 59 Carroll, Charles, 15, 86, 92, 106 “Caution,” 125 celebrations of royal holidays and Washington’s birthday, 44–46, 50–52, 79, 156, 162, 185n76, 223n121 “Centinel” (Samuel Bryan), 58, 61, 63, 67–68, 73, 75 Charles Edward Stuart (Young Pretender), 33–34 Chastelluz, Marquis de, 182n26 Childs, Francis, 113, 174n20, 205n14 Christianity. See divine right; Palm Sunday; providence; Washington, George: as divine savior Church, Benjamin, 143, 218n57 Church, Edward, 143–48, 214n2. See also “Dangerous Vice” “Cincinnatus,” 60 “Citizen of the United States,” 124–25 civic virtue, 3, 64, 74, 90 civil liberties, 34, 65–66, 114, 143 civil religion, 47 “Clericus,” 130 Clinton, George, 52 Clymer, George, 103–4 Committee of Detail, 20, 178n31 Committee of Style, 20–22, 178n32 Confederation Congress, 65, 80, 211n79; title of “Excellency” for president of, 5, 19–20, 124 Congress, First Federal, 1, 21, 31, 57, 76, 78–80; biographies of members, 192n36; communication between

houses, 86–87; political cooperation in, 93, 102–3, 106; political elites in, 75–76 Connecticut, title for governor, 17 Connecticut Wits, 40, 140 Conquest of Canaan,The (Dwight), 40–41 Constitution, 1, 19–24, 100, 107; amendment of, 64–65, 138; Article I, Section 9 ( prohibition of titles of nobility), 21–23, 60, 100, 212n89; Article II, Section I (executive power of President), 173n17, 195n8; bill of rights, 60, 64; congressional consent clause of Article 1, Section 9, 22–24, 201n94; critics of, 58–60, 64–66, 74; delegates refusing to sign, 62; on executive power and authority, 2–3, 74–75, 125, 159–61; and popular sovereignty, 31; postratification period, 64; ratification, 23–24, 58, 74–75 Continental Congress, 10, 137, 195n78 corruption, fear of, 3, 7, 25–26, 57–64, 68–69, 120, 122, 133–34 court culture, 115–19, 130, 133–34, 161–63 Coxe, Tench, 58–59, 63, 211n84 “Crito,” 208n40 Curwen, Samuel, 154 Dalton, Tristram, 86 “Dangerous Vice,” 9, 132, 143–48, 158, 163. See also Adams, John; Church, Edward Davies, Samuel, 36 Davies, William, 50 Deane, Silas, 70 debt, federal, 121–22 Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (Adams), 67 democracy, 2, 6, 31, 44, 67–68, 114, 131, 165; natural, 61 Democratic Republican Party, 163–64 “Democritus,” 162 diplomats, 25–27, 67, 70; gifts to, 23 divine right, 5, 32–35, 131 Dwight, Thomas, 128 Dwight, Timothy, 40–41 Edes, Benjamin, 8 egalitarian ideas and principles, 6, 12–13, 15, 21, 31, 57–58, 68, 73, 124, 128–31, 153, 161 elective king, fear of, 58, 75, 159 elites and elitism, 3–4, 6, 9–12, 13, 16, 26, 28–29, 46, 75–76, 134. See also aristocracy; aristocratic cabals

INDEX Elkins, Stanley, 9 Ellsworth, Oliver, 99, 123, 178n31, 201n95 England. See Great Britain “Entry, The” (political cartoon), 47–50, 52, 187n89 etiquette, 12, 115–19, 150, 152 exceptionalism, American, 39–43, 126. See also Rising Glory movement executive authority. See presidency “Extinction of Titles” (poem), 130 Farrand, Max, 151 “Federal Farmer,” 23–24, 60–61, 191n14 Federal Hall, 46, 78 “Federalist,” 81, 125 Federalist Papers,The, 59 Federalist Party, 162–63 Federalists: on Adams’s Defence, 67; and Antifederalists, 8, 64, 75; defense of natural aristocracy, 61; defense of presidency during ratification, 58–59, 63–64, 71–73; and ratification of Constitution, 74, 160; serving in First Federal Congress, 64–65; on titles language in Constitution, 23–24 Fenno, John, 8, 105, 111, 115, 118, 174n20, 209n55, 211n87 First Federal Congress. See Congress, First Federal Fitzsimons, Thomas, 135 “Fox and His Tail, The” (political fable), 114 France: celebrations of dauphin’s birth, 45–46; diplomatic mission to, 70; obituary of titles and monarchy, 131; revolution of 1789, 130–31 Franklin, Benjamin, 23, 47, 70, 139 freedom. See liberty Freeman, James, 148, 149 Freneau, Philip, 42 Gale, Benjamin, 58 Gates, Horatio, 48, 68 George I and II, 33–34 George III, 35–36, 55, 75, 96 Georgia, title for governor, 17, 210n74 Gerry, Elbridge, 61, 62, 162–63 Giles, William, 76, 192n36 Glorious Revolution of 1688, 33 Goodhue, Benjamin and Stephen, 115 Grayson, William, 65, 121 Great Awakening, 41 Great Britain, 33–36, 67, 96–97; royal processions and holidays, 44, 50–51, 54,

247

154, 156; statute citations, 99; two bodies of king’s sovereignty, 5, 32–36; use of “Excellency,” 17; use of “Mr.,” 14 Greene, Nathanael, 38 Grigsby, Hugh Blair, 23 Griswold, Rufus, 151–52 Guerard, Benjamin, 38 Hall, Stephen, 112 Hamilton, Alexander, 19, 62, 90, 178n32; debt funding plan, 122; on presidential etiquette, 117; as “Publius,” 23, 59, 63–64 Harrington (pseudonym), 78 Hartford Wits, 40, 140 Hawkins, Benjamin, 109 Hazard, Ebenezer, 52, 155 Henry, John, 203n123 Henry, Patrick, 18, 150 Henry, William Wirt, 18 heraldry, 27–29, 83, 153 hereditary aristocracy. See under aristocracy hereditary elite, 29. See also elites and elitism “His Rotundity,” 8, 101, 132, 163. See also Adams, John honorifics. See titles House of Representatives, 58, 87, 107, 113, 160; elites in, 75–76, 134; former Antifederalists in, 65; opposition to exalted presidential title, 3, 79, 87, 107, 134; reply to inaugural address, 92–93, 100, 107, 135; representation in, 60, 72; title debate in, 7, 87, 92–93, 95–109; titles for representatives, 5–6, 81, 104, 113, 134–35 Hume, David, 33–34 Humphreys, David, 48, 89, 90 Hutchinson, James (collaboration as “Old Whig”), 190n1 Hutson, James, 4, 198n35 Idea of a Patriot King,The (Bolingbroke), 34 inaugural address, Washington’s: collaboration with James Madison, 89–91; salutations in legislative replies to, 92–93 “Indifference,” 120 individual rights, 77, 109, 143 Izard, Ralph, 86, 99, 101, 108, 132 Jackson, James, 94, 102–5, 122 Jackson, William, 19 “Jacob Federal,” 120 James Edward (Old Pretender), 33 James II, 33

248

I NDE X

Jameson, J. Franklin, 41 Jay, John, 52, 80, 90, 117, 141; as “Publius,” 59, 64 Jefferson, Thomas, 71, 92, 108, 137, 199n57; on John Adams and title controversy, 139; presidency of, 164–65; vice presidency of, 147 “Jet-d’Eau of Honors” (Fountain of Honors) (Page), 119–20 “Jo Bunker,” 130 Johnson, William Samuel, 92, 178n32, 201n95 Johnston, Samuel, 109 Jones, Joseph, 134, 217n42 juntos, 26, 61–63, 68, 71, 74 Kantorowicz, Ernst Hartwig, 5, 181n20 Ketcham, Ralph, 10 King, Rufus, 178n32 Knox, Henry, 52, 90 Knox, Lucy, 118, 208n40 Knox, William, 94 Lamb, John, 62 Landy, Marc, 11 Langdon, John, 90–91, 101 Langdon, Samuel, 43 “lap-dog dragon” metaphor, 155 Lear, Tobias, 89 Ledlie, Hugh, 62 Lee, Arthur, 60, 70, 200n69 Lee, Charles, 18 Lee, Richard Henry, 65–66, 70–71, 80, 99, 142–43, 201n95; and authorship of “Federal Farmer,” 191n14; criticism of, 71, 99, 108, 141–43, 150; fear of aristocratic cabals in Senate, 57; as influential Antifederalist, 60–61, 65–66; motion for titles committee, 6, 79, 86; relationship with John Adams, 66–67, 70–71; on representation in the House, 60; in Senate, 48, 64–65; support for amendments to the Constitution, 65–66, 142–43; support for exalted presidential title, 3–4, 8, 70–71, 88, 100, 105, 107–8 Lee, William, 70 Lee-Deane affair, 70 Leibiger, Stuart, 9, 199n57 L’Enfant, Peter C., 46 “Letters from a Federal Farmer.” See “Federal Farmer” liberty, 9, 31, 63, 68, 94, 110–11, 114, 121, 125–26, 132, 134, 145; civil liberties, 34,

65–66, 114, 143; personal liberties, 60, 90 Liston, Henrietta, 162 Livingston, Robert, 89, 104–5, 117; as “A. L.,” 104, 203n119 Lloyd, Thomas, 174n20 Longmore, Paul, 4 Lossing, Benson, 49, 187n89 Louisiana Purchase, 164–65 Louis XVI of France, 23 Loyalists, 55, 154 Luzerne, Chevalier de la, 45 Maclay, William, 3, 50, 52, 73–74, 76, 86–88, 91, 149, 214n8; and Adams, 73, 95–99, 139–40; antimonarchical attitudes, 58, 73–74, 96–97, 118, 119; diary of, 7, 9, 74; as “Old Soldier,” 140, 217n43; opposition to exalted presidential title, 79, 96–102, 105–9; on Washington’s views on titles, 151–53, 172n9 Macomb House, 81, 82, 220n93 Madison, James, 3, 58, 65, 87, 113, 117, 134, 151, 218n51; collaboration with, and as public voice, of Washington, 9, 89–92, 102–4, 108, 152–53; on Committee of Style, 21, 178n32; on oligarchy in Congress, 71–73; opposition to exalted presidential title, 103–4, 108; at Philadelphia Convention, 19; as “Publius,” 59, 71 Mandrillon, Joseph, 37 “Manilus,” 122 Mansfield, Jared, 55 Martin, William, 112 Maryland, 45; title for governors, 17; title for president of Convention of the Province of Maryland, 15 “Mary Meanwell,” 38 Mason, George, 61–63, 66, 139 Massachusetts, 65, 210n74; Charter of 1691, 17; Constitution of 1780, 18, 128; Convention to ratify constitution, 24; dispute over titles for federal House members, 5–6; title for governor, 18, 126–28, 161 McCorkle, Samuel, 43 McKitrick, Eric, 9 McLean, Archibald, 81, 174n20 meritocracy, 61 middling citizens, 76, 145 military titles, 13–14, 16–17, 121 Milkis, Sidney, 11

INDEX monarchy/monarchical sovereignty: divine right, 5, 32–35, 131; fears of, 2–3, 24–25, 30–31, 57–59, 111, 120, 122, 132–33, 136, 153, 158; fear of an elective king, 58, 75, 159; in Great Britain, 59–60, 74–75; sacred bodies of, 32–36. See also court culture; pageantry and pomp in government “Monitor,” 111 Monroe, James, 192n36 Morgan, Edmund Sears, 5, 11, 180n2, 181n20 Morris, Gouverneur, 20–22, 178n32 Morris, Robert, 106 Moustier, Comte de, 25, 78, 95, 112, 119, 128–29, 138–39, 163 Muhlenberg, Frederick, 107, 151–53 Muhlenberg, Peter, 79, 102, 151–53, 215n15

249

“Officer of the Late Continental Army,” 61 “Old Soldier,” 140, 152 “Old Whig,” 58, 75, 190n1 oligarchy, 26, 61–62, 66, 68–73, 77 “On Abuse of Titles of Distinction,” 197n24 Osgood House, 80–81, 89, 220n93 Otis, Samuel, 7, 87 Otto, Louis Guillaume, 139, 208n47 “Our Fabian Queen,” 116

pageantry and pomp in government, 27, 35, 50, 116, 133–34, 136, 139, 144–45, 150, 156 Palm Sunday, 47–49, 52 Paterson, William, 92, 101 Peale, Charles Willson, 51 Pearsall, Thomas, 54 Pendleton, Edmund, 23, 72 Pennsylvania, 58, 63, 73, 76; title for president of Supreme Executive Council, 17 Peters, Samuel, 55 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 8, 45–46, 51; as possible seat of government, 122, 136 Philadelphia Convention, 19–22, 43, 62, 65, 178n31–32 “Philo-W,” 130 Pickering, Timothy, 23 “Plain Pennsylvania Farmer,” 122 Poem, on the Rising Glory of America, A (Brackenridge and Freneau), 42 political cartoons, 36, 47–50, 52, 186n87. See also “Entry, The” “Poplicola,” 128–29 popular sovereignty, two bodies of, 5, 11–12, 31–36, 158. See also monarchy/ monarchical sovereignty; third body of sovereignty populism, 9, 61, 68–70, 73, 76, 123, 131, 145, 163 presidency, 64, 86, 122, 158–59, 171n1, 196n15; abuse of power, concerns over, 68, 107, 133; fear of corruption, 3, 7, 25–26, 57–64, 68–69, 122, 133–34; fear of strong monarchical, 57–64, 66–77; fear of weak, 3, 7, 25–26, 57, 59–60, 62–64, 68–77, 70; power of removal, 122, 143, 146, 159; powers and authority of, 2–3, 10–11, 25–27, 59, 64, 114, 121–23, 137, 146, 159–61, 164–65; protectiveness toward, 4, 57, 71–77, 81, 88, 99, 109, 118, 160, 165; veto power, 64, 123, 138, 143, 159. See also Washington, George privy councils, 66, 143, 192n31 “Pro Republica,” 115–16, 118, 119 providence (divine), 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 126 “Publius,” 23, 59, 63–64, 71, 74

Page, John, 67, 102, 119, 139, 202n99. See also “Answer Impromptu by P, The”; “Jet-d’Eau of Honors” (Fountain of Honors)

Qua (Captain), 16 Quakers, 48, 54 Quincy, Josiah and Eliza, 198n47 “Quis? by T.T.T.M.D.,” 139

natural democracy, 61 Naylor, James, 48 Netherlands, stadtholders in, 103, 151, 152 Newburgh Conspiracy, 48 New Hampshire, ratification of Constitution, 24, 64 newspapers: coverage of Washington, 38, 79–80; inauguration coverage, 93–95; and presidential titles, 81–84, 93–95, 104–5, 110–11 New York (city), 80–81, 88, 149, 187n90; City Hall, 46; criticism of, 122, 136, 149; presidential security, 80–81; as temporary seat of government, 81, 88, 122, 136; Washington’s arrival in, 16, 50–54; Washington’s inauguration, 78, 88–90 New York (state), 16, 64–65 North Carolina, federal Senate title dispute, 65, 109 “Northern Cousin,” 111

250

I NDE X

Ramsay, David, 42 Randolph, Edmund, 22–23, 62, 65, 71, 151, 178n31 Randolph, John, 55 ratification issues, 23–24, 58–59, 63–64, 71–75, 160 “Real Farmer,” 76 “Real Mechanic,” 145 “Real Republican” (possibly James Sullivan writing as), 127–29, 134 “Real Republican,” James Sullivan writing as, 215n10 religion, 41, 47–50; civil, 47. See also divine right; Palm Sunday; Washington, George: as divine savior “Republican” ( John Page), 67 Republican Court, 116–19, 133, 161–63; referred to as American Court, 118, 119 republicanism, 77, 91–92, 99, 118–21, 126, 143–44, 162–63 Revolutionary War: American culture and, 2, 41–42, 47, 161; motion for independence, 66–67 Rhode Island, 24, 65, 223n122 Rising Glory movement, 41–43, 126 Robin, Claude, Abbé, 37–38 Robinson, John, 194n58 Rodney, Thomas, 23, 24 Rush, Benjamin, 25–27, 135–39, 224n128 Russell, Benjamin, 8, 111, 209n55, 211n87 Russell, Eleazar, 119 “Rusticus,” 133–34 Rutledge, John, 178n31

Sherman, Roger, 68–69, 87, 135, 137–39 Shippen, Thomas Lee, 80 simplicity, 79, 91, 118–19, 149, 164; affectation of, 105, 108 Small (Major), 16 Smilie, John, 63; collaboration as “Old Whig,” 190n1 Smith, Melanctin, 191n14 Smith, William, 42, 90, 119, 196n15 social status and rank, 14–16, 58, 110–11, 126, 129, 145; in federal functions, 115–21; fluidity of, 6, 13–19; proper and improper distinctions of, 28–29, 83 Society of the Cincinnati, 28–29, 44, 121, 153 South Carolina, 24, 46, 58, 65 sovereignty. See monarchy/monarchical sovereignty; popular sovereignty, two bodies of; third body of sovereignty Stanton, Joseph, 65 states: power of, relative to federal government, 10, 110, 123–29; titles for governors, 5, 17–22, 27, 100, 121, 123–29, 161, 210n74 St. Clair, Arthur, 20, 152 Steuben, Frederick, 55, 116 Stiles, Ezra, 2, 39 Stuart, David, 149–50, 153 Stuarts, 33–34 style (stile), 20–21, 86, 178n33 “Subscriber,” 129 Sullivan, James, 107, 116, 134, 217n42 Supreme Court, 31

salaries, federal, 121–22 Sargent, Winthrop, 94 Scriba, George, 81 Second Continental Congress, 10, 15, 66 Sedgwick, Theodore, 128 Senate, 7, 48, 50, 78, 163–64; debate on titles, 92–93, 95–109; former Antifederalists in, 65; as monarchical institution, 9, 134–35; parodies of, 134; reply to inaugural address, 91–92, 95, 99, 108; representation in, 60; as threat to presidency, 71–73; title resolution, 79, 113, 130, 167–68; titles for senators, 6, 81, 83, 85, 109, 120, 133–34. See also aristocracy, types of: cabals/aristocracy of the Senate Senate Journal, 7, 113, 130 sentry boxes, 80–81 sermons, 36, 39–40, 42–43, 186n86 “Sheridan, Tertius,” 112

Temple, John, 89 Thatcher, George, 43–44, 52–54, 112, 119 third body of sovereignty, 5, 32, 35–36, 56, 133, 154, 158, 161, 163, 165 Thomas, Isaiah, 120 Thomson, Charles, 19–20 Thornton, Edward, 162 titles: ambassadors and diplomats, 25, 27, 115; in civil society, 82–84, 111–12, 114; defined, 175n1; for government officials, 13–14, 16–22, 81–84, 120, 123–24; for governors, royal and colonial, 17; for governors, state, 5, 17–22, 21, 27, 100, 121, 123–29, 161, 210n74; “his highness” of the House, 102; “His Rotundity,” 8, 101, 132, 163; for House members, 5–6, 134; military, 13–17, 121; as object lesson for moral improvement, 111–12; “odium of titles,” 101, 119; power conferred by, 103; for the

INDEX president of the Confederation Congress, 5, 19–22, 124; for representatives, 5–6, 81, 104, 113, 134–35; for senators, 6, 81, 83, 85, 109, 120, 133–34; and social status, 13–19, 112–15; as subset of style, 178n33; “Your highness of the Senate,” 102 —specific, used in society and political culture: Consort, 115–16; Esquire, 13, 16–17, 82–83, 103, 112–13, 130, 175n2, 197n20, 205n14, 208n52; Excellency, 5, 17–22, 27, 123–24, 126–29, 210n74; Her Serenity, 118; His Honor, 17, 210n74; His Serene Highness, 162; Honorable, 5–6, 82–83, 109, 134; Lady, 115; Most Honorable, 6, 83–84, 115, 120, 209n55; Mr., 13–16, 137 —Washington, titles used for: Excellency, 6, 16–19, 22, 161, 223n128; General, 6, 19, 82, 161, 223n128; Sir, 161, 223n128 titles, presidential: in drafts of Constitution, 20–24; everyday use by public, 94–95; and federal debt and salaries, 121–22; and national security, 26–27, 124; as symbol of status and authority, 25–29 —controversy: formation of congressional title committees, 86–87, 100–101, 198n35; legislative phase, 6–9, 79, 85–88, 92–109; official beginning of, 79, 86, 188n93; outcome and significance of, 1–2, 6, 9–12, 79, 110, 159–65; public phase, 6–9, 12, 110–31, 132–58; as republican dilemma, 57–77; Senate Resolution on a Presidential Title, 167–68; title committee resolutions, 105–8 —specific titles suggested for president: The Delight of Human Kind, 155; Elected Majesty, 78; Excellency, 20–22, 27, 79, 81, 93, 100–101, 103, 108, 124, 156; General Washington, 82; High Excellency, 200n69; High Mightiness, 9, 103, 151–52; Highness, 1, 8, 25, 27, 79, 81–83, 93–95, 100, 104, 108, 118, 124, 148, 156; His elective Majesty, G. W. President of the United States, 78; His excellent Highness, 200n69; His Grace, 103; His Highness, the President General of United Columbia, 93–94; His Highness the President general, 153; His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of their Liberties, 1, 93, 105, 113, 130, 167; His Highness

251

the President of the United States of America and Protector of the rights of the same, 101; His Majesty elect, 78; His Majesty the President, 1, 124, 204n31; His Serene the President, 118; His Sublimity, 148; Illustrious President, 93, 153, 156, 219n86; Magistracy, 104–5; Majesty, 8, 26, 27, 95, 108, 137; Mightiness, 103, 152; Most Benign Highness, 25, 27, 108; Most Christian Majesty, 105; Most High, 148; Most Illustrious, 81; Most Illustrious Highness, 78; Most Serene Highness, 78; Mr. President, 137, 161; President of the United States, 1, 6, 12, 15, 27, 93, 106, 131, 153, 155, 156, 159–62, 165, 168; President Washington, 82; Sacred Majesty, 95; Serene Highness, 79, 95, 103, 134, 162; Supremacy, 104–5, 148; Supreme Magistrate and President of the United States, 105; Washington as a title, 82, 91, 112–13 “Togatus,” 145 treaty making, 64, 159 Trumbull, Jonathan, 17, 140 Tryon, William, 16 Tucker, St. George, 133, 141–43, 150. See also “Up and Ride” (unpublished play) Tucker, Thomas Tudor, 87, 94–95, 102, 139–40, 142–43, 145. See also “Quis? by T.T.T.M.D.” Tudor, William, 25, 27, 135 Tufts, Cotton, 119, 146 two bodies. See monarchical sovereignty; popular sovereignty, two bodies of United States: balance of powers, 3–4, 26, 67, 69, 72–73; civil religion, 47; compared to Israel, 39–40; federal debt and salaries, 121–22; Great Seal of, 27–28; international perceptions of, 124–26; national character of, 7, 71, 110, 119–21, 158, 161, 163, 165; national security, 26–27, 124; post-revolutionary culture, 2, 41–42, 47, 161; representation in government, 60, 68; temporary seat of government, 21, 81, 88, 122, 136; westward expansion, 41–42 “Up and Ride” (unpublished play), 141–43. See also Tucker, St. George Vans, William, 154 Verses on the Prospect of Planting Arts and Learning in America (Berkeley), 41

252

I NDE X

vice presidency, title controversy’s impact on, 163–64 Villefranche, Jean-Louis-Ambrose, 45 Virginia, 18, 55, 64; Antifederalists, 65; aristocracy in, 70; distrust of federal government, 151, 163; House of Burgesses, use of titles in, 14; title for governor, 18–19; unrest over title campaign and faith in Washington, 149–51 “Virginia,” 122 Vision of Columbus,The (Barlow), 40–41 Voltaire, 38 Wait, Thomas, 43–44, 112, 121 Warren, James, 119 Washington, George, 16, 19, 65; and Adams, 117, 132–33, 140–41, 147–48, 150–51, 158, 163; advisors, 89–90; arrival in New York City, 16, 50–54; birthday celebrations for, 44–46, 79, 156, 162, 185n76, 223n121; at celebrations for dauphin of France, 45–46; collaboration with James Madison, 9, 89–93, 102–4, 108, 152–53; compared to Jesus Christ, 5, 47–50, 186n86; criticism of, 28–29, 44; in “Dangerous Vice” (Edward Church), 147–48; as divine savior, 5, 30–32, 36–43, 47–50, 56; as father of his country, 30, 38–39, 52, 54, 120, 147; illness in first presidential term, 146; impact on the title controversy outcome, 89–93; inaugural address, 89–91; inauguration, 78, 88–89; journey from Mount Vernon to New York, 50–51; medal of, 38; modesty of, 133, 158, 161; monarchal displays by, 44, 161–62; and

Newburgh Conspiracy, 48; opposition to exalted presidential title, 9, 11, 102–4, 107, 149–53, 160–65; at Philadelphia Convention, 43; political cartoons of, 47–50, 186n87; popularity and adulation of, 4–5, 7, 11, 22, 30–31, 35–42, 46–56, 94, 132–33, 143, 153–58, 160–61; presidential etiquette, 115–19, 150, 152; presidential tours, 153–58; as republican executive ideal, 9, 91, 132–33, 147–50, 156–58, 160–61, 165; residence in New York, 80–82; security for, 80–81; songs and poems about, 36–37, 43, 46, 88, 154; successors, 155–56; third body of, 5, 36, 56, 133, 154, 158, 161, 163, 165; unfounded report of support of exalted title, 3, 151–53, 220–21n98, 220n97; in “Up and Ride” (St. George Tucker), 141; Washington as a title, 82, 91, 112–13 —titles commonly used for: Excellency, 6, 16–19, 22, 161, 223n128; General, 6, 19, 82, 161, 223n128; Sir, 161, 223n128. See also titles, presidential: specific titles suggested for president Washington, Martha, 80, 119, 149, 220n92; titles for, 115–16 Wayne, Anthony, 148 Wendell, John, 148 Wheatley, Phyllis, 36–37 White, Alexander, 85, 87, 102 Wilson, James, 2–3, 178n31 Winchester, Elhanan, 40 Wingate, Paine, 55, 86, 92 Wolcott, Oliver, 123 women: court culture and titles in elite society, 115–16, 118–19, 163; and fashion, 111–12, 204n4; lack of titles, 16 Wynkoop, Henry, 50, 102, 112, 151–53