In recent years, many people in the United States have lost faith in representative bodies—in democracy itself. Trump and MAGA are acting as if they prefer having a dictator rather than a president whose limited powers are shared with the Congress and the Supreme Court.

They have forgotten the wisdom of George Washington who was against having a king or a dictator.

Although George Washington knew that deliberative bodies are inherently slow, he never lost faith that deliberative bodies would act justly in the end. And he supported the way the Constitution of the United States limited the president’s powers by requiring the President to share powers with the Congress and the Supreme Court.

This faith and wisdom of George Washington were displayed when he sent the Army home after the War for American Independence. As I described in my book Visions of America (at pages 39-41):

It is an unfortunate truth that most revolutions end in tyranny, leading to even more violence.

For example, after Cromwell won the English Civil War and set about to establish the power of Parliament and the Rights of Englishmen, he executed the king, ruled without Parliament, and led a brutal military campaign against Ireland.

In similar fashion, the French Revolution for “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” led to the execution of the king, the terror of the guillotine, and the imperialist wars of the self-styled “Emperor Napoleon.”

Fortunately for America, George Washington was neither a Cromwell nor a Napoleon.

Instead, Washington was guided by the example of Cincinnatus, a legendary Roman warrior from the heroic, virtuous days of the Roman Republic—centuries before the tyranny and immorality of the Roman Emperors that led to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. After saving his nation, Cincinnatus did not make himself into a king, but returned to his farm.

Guided by similar personal integrity, after saving America from British tyranny, Washington did not declare himself a king, but returned to his Virginia plantation, Mount Vernon.

The danger to American democracy was greatest in 1783. The peace treaty with Britain had been negotiated and hostilities had ceased. Now the army was free to pursue its complaints against Congress about lack of pay and supplies. Rather than disband, why shouldn’t the army march on Congress and demand “justice” at the point of the bayonet?

Only the wisdom and virtue of one man, George Washington, stopped such folly. Because he “never gave in, never gave in, never, never, never, except to convictions of honor and good sense”—such as his own personal conviction that he should not become a king or a dictator.

At a mass meeting with his officers on March fifteenth, 1783, Washington desperately sought to instill such honor and good sense in the army.

Perhaps the date itself, March 15th, reinforced Washington’s resolve to support the Congress rather than to support a popular movement among his men and make himself into a king. Why was this date significant?

The Romans had, for centuries, referred to the fifteenth day of the third month of the year as “The Ides of March.” And on one infamous Ides of March, in 44 B.C., Julius Caesar failed to heed the traditional warning “Beware the Ides of March”. On that day, he was assassinated on the steps of the Roman Senate—specifically because some Roman Senators feared that his popularity and power were such that he would make himself into a king.

Fortunately, unlike Julius Caesar, George Washington did not want to become king. Instead of exploiting the army’s anger to increase his own personal power, he urged patience.

“[D]espite the slowness inherent in deliberative bodies,” Washington expressed his faith that Congress would act justly in the end. He told the officers, therefore, that they should not “open the floodgates of civil discord, and deluge our rising empire in blood.” Instead, said Washington, they should honorably set a glorious example so that all humanity would see America produce “the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.”

Such appeals to honor and good sense were not persuasive. The officers remained disgruntled even after Washington ended his prepared remarks.

Hoping that a reassuring letter from a congressman would sway them, Washington pulled the letter from his pocket, but then became confused. The officers leaned forward, afraid that Washington—their beloved leader—might be ill.

Actually, the problem was that Washington’s eyesight had become so bad that he couldn’t read without glasses. He hated to acknowledge and such a sign of weakness and old age, but at last, Washington sheepishly extracted his letter from his pocket. With some embarrassment, he said, “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.”

They wept.

This simple, sincere statement by Washington touched their hearts, reminding them of their love for him and of the immense sacrifices they all had made for the cause of liberty.

The crisis was over.

Washington stayed with the army until the British evacuated New York City in late November, 1783. He said goodbye to his officers at Fraunces Tavern. Overcome with emotion at this parting from his comrades, Washington was unable to eat. His hand shook and his lip trembled. Tears streamed down the faces of his officers as Washington embraced each man separately.

Tears also flowed when Washington went to Congress to retire from military life. Rather than becoming a king, he wanted to go home.

George Washington arrived at Mount Vernon on Christmas Eve, 1783. As candles flickered in every window, Martha greeted him at the doorway.

And so, as Thomas Jefferson later paid tribute, “The moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish.”

Moderation! Virtue!

No kings! No dictators!

We still need this Wisdom of George Washington in the Twenty-First Century.

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT

Why are deliberative bodies inherently fast?

Why are kings and dictators inherently hasty?

Why are decisions by deliberative bodies better than decisions by kings and dictators?

READ MORE

For related ideas, please read my blogs “Listen to Both Sides” “Use the Ways of the First Amendment, Not the Ways of the Second Amendment”, “Spilling Coffee”, and “Civilizations and Governments: An Independent Path”.

For examples of how discussions and deliberations should be conducted, please read the chapters “James, Peter and John Fellowship with Paul” and “A Church Council Encourages Non-Jews to Turn to God”, in my book Lighting the World, at pages 73-90.