Here then we can see why Washington insisted that religion and morality were “indispensable pillars” of America’s political happiness. We will consider the implications of this statement from his Farewell Address in the final section of this chapter.
A PRESIDENTIAL SERMON: WASHINGTON’S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS
The man who refused to be king at the end of the war was unanimously chosen as president at the start of the new constitutional government—the only man to occupy that office who could make that claim. At his inauguration to the presidency, even as at his retirement from the military, he gave evidence for his Christian faith.
In his first Inaugural Address, Washington frequently referred to the Almighty. His very first act as president was to pray. Washington prayed that God would secure the liberties of the new nation:29 He went on to say that no one should be more grateful to God than the people of the United States of America in light of what he had done for them throughout the war.30
Although the new nation had just gone through the tumultuous time after the Revolution of creating a new civil government, this process, fraught with sectional rivalries and tensions, was accomplished in a peacefully unique way that called for “pious gratitude,” since this implied even more divine blessings to come.31 The implication Washington drew from all of this was that America could not expect the continuing “smiles of Heaven” if “the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained” were disregarded.32
We must remember that when Washington attended the Anglican churches of his day, he—along with the congregation—recited the Ten Commandments from the reredos behind the altar. In Washington’s historical context, “the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained” could only refer to the Ten Commandments, given that this was the belief of almost every American in Washington’s day who read or heard his Inaugural Address.
Along with his solemn Inaugural Address that graced America’s first auspicious pageant of civil religion, Washington’s inauguration contributed three other religious precedents. Two have continued, and the third has not. The first is the swearing in of the president with the use of the Bible. This Bible has been sacredly kept by the Masons of New York City. The page where Washington placed his hand for the oath of office was marked by the turning down of the corner of the page. Interestingly, the marked page is Genesis 49, the chapter where Jacob, the father of the sons of Israel, bestows his blessing upon them. By this time Washington had long been called “the father of his country.” The parallel of the text and the inauguration was not accidental.
The second religious precedent from Washington’s inauguration that continues is the addition of the words “So help me God” to his presidential oath of office, which was spoken as Washington had his hand upon the scriptures opened to Genesis 49. These words were not and are not in the Constitution, but every subsequent president in America’s history has said them following Washington’s lead. Washington’s freely taken oath in the name of God has another important significance beyond mere precedent. It eviscerates James Thomas Flexner’s claim concerning Washington’s Inaugural Address. He states that “Washington ...avoided, as was his deist custom, the word ‘God.’” 33 Strange, indeed, that a man who was following Deist custom would scrupulously avoid the name of God in his speech, but then intentionally add it to his oath of office, where it was not even required! Washington’s inaugural sermon does not avoid the name of God, but instead employed the honorific titles of deity that were so often used by the clergy of his era. Washington’s inaugural vocabulary for deity cannot legitimately be construed to be that of a Deist. Every inauguration after Washington has reminded America that Washington did not avoid the word “God.”
A third Washingtonian religious precedent did not continue. This occurred immediately after being sworn in on the Holy Bible—the new president bent down and kissed the sacred book.34
But the religious elements of Washington’s inauguration were still not complete. Next, he led the congressmen and everyone else across the street from Federal Hall to St. Paul’s Chapel for a two hour service of Christian worship to commit the new nation to God.35 According to Mrs. Alexander Hamilton, she knelt with President Washington as they received the Eucharist together.36
WASHINGTON’S PUBLIC WITNESS TO THE RELIGIOUS BODIES OF AMERICA
At various times during Washington’s presidency, he had remarkable opportunities to declare his faith, as he was honored by various religious groups. These religious denominations often wrote an address to express their joy in Washington’s actions, presence, words, or election to office. With remarkable consistency, Washington acknowledged these letters. In doing so, he also revealed in various ways his personal religious views. There are approximately thirty some addresses that Washington received from religious bodies and that he answered during his presidential years. They reflect the full spectrum of America’s religious communities in his era, from both ecumenical clergy groups37 and individual denominations, such as Roman Catholic,38 Episcopal,39 Lutheran,40 German Reformed,41 Dutch Reformed,42 Presbyterian,43 Congregational,44 Moravian,45 Methodist,46 Baptist,47 Quaker,48 Masonic,49 Universalist,50 Jewish,51 and Swedenborgian.52 In all of his letters, Washington was always polite and clear.
Interestingly, there is no record of any deistic group or atheist group that wrote to Washington. We cannot fully summarize these letters here. But a careful reading of them will demonstrate that they consistently refer to God or divine Providence. They often quote or appeal to scripture, and consistently reflect a Christian faith and understanding on the part of Washington. They also consistently call for civil obedience and the maintenance of religious liberty. They often conclude with the need to pray for the nation or one another, with a wish of blessing for this life and the life hereafter. These letters are some of the best commentaries on Washington’s personal religion as well as his vision for the friendly and cooperative relationship between the distinct spheres of church and state. Most significantly, for our purposes, not one of them provides a hint of a deistic unbelief on the part of Washington.
The characteristic spirit of this correspondence is that both Washington and his religious correspondents agreed that both sides represented godly and religious people. To demonstrate this, let’s consider a few of the more salient examples. The Lutherans wrote on April 27, 1789, to the new president: “Pleasingly do we anticipate the blessings of a wise and efficient government—equal freedom—perfect safety—a sweet contentment spreading through the whole land—irreproachable manners with pure religion, and that righteousness which exalteth a Nation.”
In a most non-deistic manner, Washington responded, “I flatter myself opportunities will not be wanting for me to shew my disposition to encourage the domestic and public virtues of industry, economy, patriotism, philanthropy, and that righteousness which exalteth a nation. . . and amidst all the vicissitudes that may await me in this mutable state of existence, I shall earnestly desire the continuation of an interest in your intercessions at the Throne of Grace.”53
The Methodist bishops had written to the president, “...we enjoy a holy expectation that you always will prove a faithful and impartial Patron of genuine, vital religion—the grand end of our creation and present probationary existence. And we promise you our fervent prayers to the Throne of Grace that GOD almighty may endue you with all the graces and gifts of his holy spirit, that may enable you to fill up your important station to his glory, the good of his Church, the happiness and prosperity of the United States, and the welfare of mankind.”
Washington’s response could not have been that of a Deist, unless it was the kind of Deist that delighted in deceiving others by playing the role of a religious charlatan. Only a godly man could have sincerely written Washington’s words to the Bishops: “After mentioning that I trust the people of every denomination, who demean themselves as good citizens, [you?]will have occasion to be convinced that I shall always strive to prove a faithful and impartial Patron of genuine, vital religion; I must assure you in particular that I take in the kindest part the promise you make of presenting your prayers at the Throne of Grace for me, and that I likewise implore the divine benedictions on yourselves and your religious community.”54
His opening line to the German Reformed Congregations on June 1789 was a simple and clear affirmation of Washington’s perspective of his own personal piety, “I am happy in concurring with you in the sentiments of gratitude and piety towards Almighty-God, which are expressed with such fervency of devotion in your address; and in believing, that I shall always find in you, and the German Reformed Congregations in the United States a conduct correspondent to such worthy and pious expressions.”55 This does not sound like someone who “was not a deeply religious man,” or someone who “had not been particularly ardent in his faith,” or one who “avoided, as was his Deist custom, the word ‘God.’”56
PRESBYTERIAN PRAISE FOR PRESIDENTIAL PIETY
But Washington’s seeming personal godliness not only touched the Lutherans and the Methodists, but the Presbyterians also saw in the President a deeply pious life of Christian faithfulness. The moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly, Reverend John Rodgers, who had corresponded with Washington during the War about giving Bibles to the American troops,57 was a key signatory of a letter emanating from a committee of the General Assembly. The Presbyterians wrote,
We adore Almighty GOD the author of every perfect gift who hath endued you with such a rare and happy assemblage of Talents as hath rendered you equally necessary to your country in war and in peace . . . .the influence of your personal character moderates the divisions of political parties. . . .your present elevated station by the voice of a great and free people, and with an unanimity of suffrage that has few if any examples in history...their confidence in your virtues; . . . we derive a presage even more flattering from the piety of your character. . . .a steady, uniform, avowed friend of the Christian religion, who has commenced his administration in rational and exalted sentiments of Piety, and who in his private conduct adorns the doctrines of the Gospel of Christ, and on the most public and solemn occasions devoutly acknowledges the government of divine Providence. The examples of distinguished Characters will ever possess a powerful and extensive influence on the public mind, and when we see in such a conspicuous station the amiable example of piety to God, of benevolence to men, and of a pure and virtuous patriotism, we naturally hope that it will diffuse its influence and that eventually the most happy consequences will result from it.58
Was the Presbyterian committee utterly mistaken about the godliness they had observed in Washington? Their letter bristled with affirmations of Washington’s piety—“personal character,” “virtues,” “piety of your character,” “avowed friend of the Christian religion,” “rational and exalted sense of piety,” “his private conduct adorns the doctrines of the Gospel of Christ,” “devoutly acknowledges the government of divine Providence,” “amiable example of piety to God,” “a pure and virtuous patriotism.”
Washington’s response to this litany of Presbyterian praise for his spiritual devotion revealed the temperament of a sincere Christian, not the temporizing of a mere politician. First and last, his concern for humility shone through: “...it will be my endeavor to avoid being elated by the too favorable opinion which your kindness for me may have induced you to express...I desire you to accept my acknowledgements for your...prayers to Almighty God for his blessing on our common country and the humble instrument, which he has been pleased to make use of in the administration of its government.”59 But Washington also understood the essence of the Presbyterian letter. They were declaring their belief that Washington himself was a Christian. What was Washington’s response to this? Was it an evasion that would allow for his actual Deism to stand without causing offense to his religious well-wishers?
Instead, his answer was one that reflected a deep sense of faith and dependence upon God: “I reiterate the possession of my dependence upon Heaven as the source of all public and private blessings.” His answer also reflected the importance of the kind of piety the Presbyterians had just extolled in him: “I will observe that the general prevalence of piety, philanthropy, honesty, industry and economy seems, in the ordinary course of human affairs are particularly necessary for advancing and confirming the happiness of our country.”
Finally, his answer emphasized that authentic Christianity was a matter to be prized, pursued, and proven. While Washington’s classic vocabulary might cloud our understanding, we can sense the passion for the Christian faith that motivated his words. His central thought was this, since all Americans enjoyed full religious liberty, it was only reasonable that something would be expected from them in return for this great blessing.60 What was this? Washington said, “...that they will be emulous of evincing the sincerity of their profession by the innocence of their lives, and the beneficence of their actions.”
We need some help here to understand Washington’s intent. A modern equivalent of Washington’s staid and archaic eighteenth century rhetoric is: “they [i. e., religious Americans] will be ambitious to surpass others in demonstrating convincingly their heartfelt declaration of faith by the sinlessness of their lives and the kindness of their actions.” Why must one’s faith be demonstrated by such works? Washington’s answer stated: “For no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.” In other words, a true Christian was one who possessed moral restraint that blessed the society through good citizenship and brought credibility to his own religious community as well. Washington was, in essence, applying the biblical teachings of James 2 to the spiritual and civil context: “Faith without works is dead.”
If this was not a conversation between a group of Christians and a Christian president, then consider the incongruity that occurred here. A committee of pre-eminent theologians and elders representing their entire denomination were utterly deceived about Washington’s faith. And Washington, unwilling to disabuse them of their mistaken notion, played along. Instead of honorably explaining their misunderstanding of his views, he furthered the mistake of the misguided Christian clergymen by deceptively expressing a faith he did not possess. Then to add insult to injury, he went on to expound as a false Christian a fundamental question of the Christian religion, namely, who is a true Christian. In so doing he, in essence, alluded to the teaching of the classic biblical text of James 2, which he, as a Deist, did not believe.
This analysis is not intended to be a reductio ad absurdum. The fact is, the options are fairly straightforward. Either Washington was a Christian, or he was a deceptive Deist. If he were the latter, his claim to be a man of honesty and character—the very thing the Presbyterians had celebrated in their letter to Washington—was just as much a sham as his counterfeit Christianity and his pretense of piety.
NON-PARTISANSHIP, PROMOTING THE GENERAL GOOD
When we considered Washington’s personality several chapters ago, we discovered that he saw himself as a non-partisan leader.61 He was not one given to partisan politics and petty conflicts, and thus, if he found parties, he tried to reconcile them. Thus, he wrote on July 6, 1796, to Thomas Jefferson, openly expressing some of the pain partisan politics inflicts on those who govern by principle:
...and moreover, that I was no believer in the infallibility of the politics, or measures of any man living. In short, that I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them. To this I may add, and very truly, that, until with in the last year or two ago, I had no conception that Parties would, or even could go, the length I have been witness to; nor did I believe until lately, that it was within the bonds of probability; hardly with in those of possibility, that, while I was using my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, independent, as far as our obligations, and justice would permit, of every nation of the earth; and wished, by steering a steady course, to preserve this Country from the horrors of a desolating war, that I should be accused of being the enemy of one Nation, and subject to the influence of another; and to prove it, that every act of my administration would be tortured, and the grossest, and most insidious mis-representations of them be made (by giving one side only of a subject, and that too in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero; a notorious defaulter; or even to a common pick-pocket). But enough of this; I have already gone farther in the expression of my feelings, than I intended.62
Similarly, George Washington eschewed any form of prejudice. He once stated, “I am uninfluenced by prejudice, having no hopes or fears but for the general good.”63 On the contrary, Washington once declared that his concern first and foremost was the general good:
I have no object separated from the general welfare to promote. I have no predilections, no prejudices to gratify, no friends, whose interests or views I wish to advance at the expence of propriety.64
One of his final written lines on politics was about his desire to keep America neutral in international politics. Writing to Lafayette, on December 25, 1798, Christmas Day only a year before he died, Washington says,
On the Politics of Europe I shall express no Opinion, nor make any inquiry who is Right or who is Wrong. I wish well to all nations and to all men. My politics are plain and simple. I think every nation has a Right to establish that form of Government under which It conceives It shall live most happy; provided it infracts no Right or is not dangerous to others. And that no Governments ought to interfere with the internal concerns of Another, except for the security of what is due to themselves.65
CONCLUSION: WASHINGTON’S PRINCIPLES OF LEADERSHIP
Nevertheless, a political candidate creates competition and rivalry simply by trying to lead. So, in spite of Washington’s desire to be non-political, he was often in the midst of political intrigue. This happened when he tried to step down after his first term, but was urged to run again.66 Only months before Washington died, political intrigue surfaced again at the end of John Adam’s first term, when there were those who attempted to persuade him to leave retirement and pursue a third term, fearing that Adams would not be reelected.67
How did Washington seek to lead in the midst of a competitive and divisive political context? The answer is found in his concept of seeking the good of “the great whole.” A full study of Washington’s principles of leadership would be beneficial to all who seek to learn to lead better. But here, we simply present a few insightful comments from the great leader of early America. These principles are simply given in the chronological order they occur in Washington’s writings.
Principle # 1: Smaller Groups When Well Led Will Reflect The Unity Of The “Great Whole.”
In short, each Brigade should be an epitome of the great whole, and move by similar Springs upon a smaller scale.68
