3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Short lucid presentation that fills a surprising void., May 26, 2006
This review is from: George Washington and American Constitutionalism (American Political Thought) (Paperback)
We tend to be too focused on the constitution as a document that is somehow frozen in time. We forget too often that as ratified it was very vague on any number of subjects as to how the various branches of government would work. We also too often assume that the way it broadly works now is the way it always worked. Hah!
Recently, we have been blessed by work by scholars like David Currie and Akhil Amar Reed that remind us that the Constitution is not just a document but a history of practices based on that document. Our early Congresses, Presidents and Supreme Court Justices had to decide how to perform their functions. How were the seperation of powers and the checks and balances to work?
Many of these issues took years to settle (e.g., the idea of judicial review).
George Washington played an incredibly vital role in many of these decisions. Flexner, in his biography called Washington, 'the indispensable man". This is as true of his role in the ratification debates and the early years of the new government as it was in the Revolutionary War.
So says Glenn Phelps to which I say, "Amen". There is a telling moment in the first volume of Farrand's Records of the Convention when the delegates first consider placing the executive in one man. After the motion is seconded, Madison notes, "A considerable pause ensuing.." (Farrand, 1:65) which is broken only after Washington asks if they just want to go ahead and vote on the motion and Franklin asks everyone to speak their mind. The delegates were reticent about speaking their minds on the reasons they would limit the powers of the office of President simply because they all assumed that Washington would be that President. Only after they were encouraged by Washington and Franklin did they then speak their minds!
I would also argue that one of the factors that contributed to the new Constitution being accepted was that everyone in the country thought that way. Most people trusted Washington to not abuse the powers he would have. They trusted him to set the tone for the office. Amazing, when you think about it.
Phelps argues (rightly, I think) that Washington's ideas about government were formed by a rather classical republicanism and by his experiences in the Revolutionary War.
His classical and conservative republicanism led him to believe that government had to be founded on the people but that the people should be represented in the government by the "best" men in their states. The best were those who had the capacity to rise above local interests to discern the true national interest and who also had the virtue to persue that national interest over any of their own. In this he was no democrat. He did not believe that representatives were to mirror local interests or to be tied down by instructions by those local interests. The people had to trust their representative to do what was best. (Phelps, p.83)
For me the most interesting part of Phelps' book is his examination of Washington's terms as President. Washington set many precedents as to how appointments were to be made, what the function of the Cabinet would be, what would be the relationship of the President to the Congress and both to the various departments of the Executive.
There are too many examples for me to be inclusive so I will give you one that was new to me. Phelps feels that Washington was very influenced by the success of his "council of war" policy during the Revolution. Washington would explain overall strategic objectives to his junior officers and then ask for advice on a series of questions. These councils served the dual function of giving the junior officers the big picture and, perhaps, of improving that same strategy. Phelps feels that Washington tried to model his cabinet on that idea (pp 160-3). But he went further than that initially. He tried unsuccessfully to incorporate the Supreme Court and the Senate into the idea of the "consultative presidency". Phelps argues that Washington's well-known visit to the Senate where he asked for advice on the instructions to be used in negotiations with the Creek Indians is an example of this (pp. 167-72). Washington took literally that part of the Constitution that the Senate had an "advise" function to play in treaties as well as an approve function.
All-in-all, this is a very enjoyable, informative and well-written book. The overall picture of Washington that emerges (as pretty much the leader of the Federalists) will disturb some people but it should not really surprise them.
One more brief comment. I almost always have to throw something in on the limits of originalism as a judicial philosophy.
All aspects of our government have a history. There is no denying the vagueness of our Constitution on most subjects that it touches. That vagueness can be somewhat focused by the ratification debates. But even then most of the details of governance went unanswered. Phelps, Currie, Reed and others are very right to point out that those details were filled in by the early administrations and beyond. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Cleveland, McKinley, both Roosevelts and others more contemporary have interpreted their role as Presidents. I know people hate the phrase but it really is a "living document". We the People are what gives it life not the other way around.
In any case, this is an excellent introduction to the effect on Constitutional development by Washington. Phelps is to be thanked for having filled an obvious void with this fine volume.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
interesting topic, colored by a liberal bias, June 12, 2011
This review is from: George Washington and American Constitutionalism (American Political Thought) (Paperback)
It is a chiche by now that George Washington has almost been above reproach, almost beatified. And yet, it is this reviewer's considered opinion that Washington has so far been our best President, which is what go our country off to such a great start.
Though oft-times Washington pretended to play 'above the fray,' there is no doubt, aided by evidence from Phelps' book, that Washingtion held certain, conservative, Federalist political beliefs, and did all he could to advance those beliefs, including at the Constitutional Convention. My observation and belief is that it is true, that Washington, Hamilton and Adams 'won' at least the first round of American politics, and that it was always Jefferson, Madison, then Jackson and Van Buren, who were always placed in the position of tearing down, piece by piece, the edifice the Federalists had erected.
Phelps' manifests his liberal bias at many points. On p. vii, he lists FDR with Jefferson and Lincoln--too far of a stretch. On that same page, Phelps writes that "...we should expect to see [Washington's] mark on the political institutions and practices...[of the USA] Au contraire: we should *not* expect to see his mark, because GW knew, in his humility, that the Constitution was the work of many hands, and no one's in particular, not even Madison.
I found it odd that Phelps made only one reference to the Bill of Rights (p. 183), and there not to the most important amendment, the 10th, which reserves all powers not expressly given to the fedgov, to the states, the local governemnts, or the people. This would contradict Washington's hope for a semi-omipotent centralized national government.
One should not forget, as Phelps points out on p. 190, that Washington endorsed the 'Alien and Sedition' acts passed during John Adams' time, to counteract the propaganda from Jefferson, Madison, et alia, and the later historians' guild. On that same page, 190, Phelps congratulates Washington that, despite Washington's fears, the USA republic has endured. Something obviously has endured, but is it the nation based on the Constitution as written and ratified, or some malignant mutant based on the philosophies of Jefferson, Madison, Wilson, FDRoosevelt and their Big/Brother/Nanny State disciples?
On pp. 187-188, Phelps basically takes the side of Jefferson et al. against Washington et al. This is the bias which permeates the whole book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Concise, Packed Knowledge, June 7, 2007
This review is from: George Washington and American Constitutionalism (American Political Thought) (Paperback)
After reading the book, I realized how much more I knew about American History in general. Little did I know that Washington was such a conservative. I did not think I knew so little before I read this, but now I am filled with information that wants to be shared. His explanations on the state of America from pre-revolutionary times until the signing of the constitutions are extremely interesting. This is on top of the extensive information on the father of our country. I came out of this book with a new understanding of how the country was formed and a new love for the work that out founding fathers did. Great book for anyone interested in American History. Especially great read for George Washington fans. This is scholarly writing at its best!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
