Mike, with all due respect, are you on crack? George Washington in your Five Most Infamous Presidents list??
I beg you, look beyond the green hills of Pittsburgh to the context of the Whiskey Rebellion. Yes, Washington sent troops into Western Pennsylvania, and yes he did it partly to protect his massive real estate holdings in Ohio, and no, he didn't have to send thirteen thousand troops. But if he hadn't done anything, what would have happened?
In 1794-5, it was still utterly unclear that the nation would survive. In the nine previous frontier uprisings that had flared up since 1740, it fell to local officials to deal with these local problems. After the formation of the United States, that was no longer a possibility, as it was manifestly the duty of the Federal Government to deal with threats to the Union. You realize as well as I do that in 1794, anything at all-- Native American incursions, the French, a large spider in the Congressional privy-- could have been a threat to the nation. Seen in that light, and allowing that the residents of Pittsburgh could just as easily given their trade to the French (The French!!!) down the Mississippi, thereby providing France economic sway over American residents, it was very important that something be done. Furthermore, without a swift, decisive display of Federal power to enforce policy, it would have seemed as though the new Constitution was just as much a piece of bumwipe as the old Articles of Confederation.
Pittsburgh was six hundred miles of hard road from Philadelphia, on the very fringe of British-led settlement. It was important to demonstrate that the periphery was just as much a part of the nation as the urban coast. By so doing, Washington took the first steps to uniting the country politically, economically, culturally, and socially. 11Sidenote:, I understand that the Whiskey Rebellion was not inevitable, and there is compelling evident that Hamilton set the tax on corn so high precisely because he intended to provoke such an incident. That's vintage Hamilton. But, as Governmental Pimp-Slaps go (bitch, where's my money???), it turned out as well as could ever be expected.
What became of the Whiskey Rebellion anyway? It was long over before any Federal troops arrived on the scene, and exactly two people were convicted (and quickly pardoned) by Washington, for instigating the Rebellion. By responding so authoritatively, the legitimacy of the Federal government was cemented, as was its authority to collect taxes (a source of sorely needed revenue). By refusing to pursue local instigators of the Rebellion, Washington ensured that the action would be understood as being for the Union, rather than against its people.
As for greatness, Washington was unquestionably the greatest president. He banished any idea of monarchical presidency. He set the precedent for serving only two terms, a precedent which lasted until FDR. He legitimized the Union. He and that little shit Hamilton built an infrastructure that still endures. He refused to openly endorse parties, though of course that didn't mean he discouraged their formation. Through his leadership in battle and government, and through the legend that grew up around him, he provided apt guidance for the new nation on every possible level. After the Bible, biographies of Washington were THE most popular reading material in the Early Republic, even more so after his death, and I have done some very interesting research into the parallels between the spread of popular biographies of Washington and the spread of unified national identity. No other President can lay claim to all that, no matter what great things they may have accomplished.
Anyway, that's just my two cents.
on
| § 0
