When George Washington refused to run for a third term of office and retired to Mount Vernon, he gave the new nation perhaps the greatest gift possible. He left us an example of how imperfect humans should lead.
Monday is Presidents Day. When I was a kid, we had separate holidays for Wahington’s and Lincoln’s Birthdays. The birthday of Lincoln, less popular in certain parts of our country, never gained traction nationally like Washington’s did. These days we celebrate a unified Presidents’ Day on the third Monday of February.
As US citizens, we have much to be grateful for in these two leaders. Not every US president has been noteworthy in the positive sense. A handful of our leaders, especially in the 19th century, left a lot to be desired when it came to enhancing national values and virtues.
Meanwhile, some of my fellow citizens have labeled recent presidents, such as Biden or Trump, the worst president ever, but regardless of what any of us might think at the moment, proper evaluation is best left to years later. That doesn’t mean we can’t affirm or oppose what presidents are doing while they are doing whatever it is they do. I’m just advocating for a perspective gained best by distance.
When someone is in political office only 4 or 8 years, the full impact of their legacy doesn’t come to light in their lifetime, let alone in their short time in office. Even the record of Jimmy Carter, who lived for another 45 years after he left the White House, is only now getting closer to such a time for honest assessment of his administration.
All that said, all national leaders will face thorough evaluation one day. No one can write their own legacy. That is left to those who follow. Even more importantly, all leaders – well, all of us – will face the judgement that really counts: standing before God their Maker, whose evaluation is the most accurate and the most important.
As Isaiah warned, God is the judge of all world leaders. Many passages of the Bible speak to how God judges world leaders. Note especially Isaiah chapter 10.
Isaiah claims God raised up Assyria to bring down other leaders for their injustices. But God made it clear that the Assyrians would be held to the same standard of judgement. And Isaiah says the Assyrians were found just as wanting. No one, Isaiah declares, is outside of God’s judgement, even if they are tools of God’s judgement. No one gets immunity.
Isaiah also makes it clear on what basis national leaders are to be evaluated. They are to be judged by God’s standards of righteousness and justice alone. Are the laws they make just or unjust? Are their decrees oppressive? Do they withhold justice from those who are oppressed? Do they deprive the poor of their rights? Do they prey on widows or rob those who are fatherless?
Note, Isaiah is not just talking about the kings of Israel and Judah here. He is claiming such godly standards for all nations equally – and for all time. Including ours.
Which brings me back to our own George Washington.
From a human perspective, there is much to Washington’s credit in the way he led this nation – his leadership of the 13 British colonies into self-governance, his push for a strong constitution and rule of law, his leadership example as general and as the first president.
Other parts of his legacy are not so positive. Although he may have expressed desire for abolition, he never pushed for it for the nation and personally held onto enslaved people even as he fought for freedom for others. His track record on treatment of Native Americans is mottled. And there are mixed reviews on how he treated other people as well.
No, he was not quite as godlike as what many of his fellow citizens made him out to be. But from most historians’ perspectives, the nation was well served by his leadership. He is considered to have been a very good first president.
It is his final gift as president that is worth mentioning. He insisted on leaving office. That was his parting gift.
Such an act was both unprecedented and precedent-setting for national leaders. When he led the nation in repudiating the standard form of government of his time – monarchy – he really meant it.
Twice, while he was general of the Continental Army, he demonstrated what he was fighting for in opposing British rule. He showed he was fighting for justice under rule of law, not to be free from human oversight.
In both these cases, the military leaders he led were deeply frustrated with the Congress of the time. The new nation had declared its independence and was governed by the Articles of Confederation and, thus, the Continental Congress. Meanwhile, the Revolutionary War was essentially, but not officially, over.
These cases came up while Washington and his troops were encamped at Newburgh, New York, just up the Hudson River from West Point. The problem was his troops weren’t being paid and hadn’t been paid for some time. Under the Articles, the Confederated Congress had the power to call up an army, but didn’t have the power to levy taxes to pay for the army.
In 1782, Washington’s military officers sent him a letter proposing that Washington become king of the United States. Colonel Lewis Nicola, who penned the letter, was recommending a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy, but a monarchy nonetheless. Washington was incensed at the letter and Nicola’s recommendation.
The following year, certain officers in the Continental Army conceived a plan to challenge the authority of the Congress. As opposed to Washington’s moderate entreaties to Congress, they argued for a forceful ultimatum. If Congress did not comply, the army would defy Congress. Washington intervened and implored the officers to abandon this act of defiance. His wise words won the day – and preserved the nation. While this second incident could have produced a military takeover, historians doubt the new nation was anywhere near close to becoming a monarchy in either case.
Washington’s responses in these two situations demonstrates how loyal Washington was to the rule of law. He understood that the Continental Congress, whether or not they were behaving properly, was the proper national authority under the Articles of Confederation.
Later he would push for a new form of government, which came about when the U.S. Constitution we now have was ratified by the former colonies. But again, he saw that all leadership – including his officers, himself, and Congress – had to be under proper authority.
Fast forward to 1797. Washington was completing his second 4-year term as president. If he had wanted to serve another term, there is little doubt the nation would have agreed. As far as many citizens were concerned, he could have been president for life.
For his part, Washington had been a reluctant leader all along and certainly would have been content to leave office at the end of his first term. But other leaders had urged him to stay, saying the country would be ruined without his leadership.
On a personal level, Washington was wearing out. Age and life experiences were taking their toll. He had a sense of his own mortality.
On a practical level, he trusted others could take up the mantle of leadership moving forward. He really did sense that others could lead, even those with whom he had sharp political disagreements. He had a sense of his own replaceability.
But more strategically, his refusal to consider a third term was influenced by his desire to set good precedence. He valued the importance of modeling appropriate leadership for future presidents. The nation was young, very young; its democratic institutions fragile. He was determined to establish norms that promoted stability and longevity. He had a sense of his own influence.
Having fought against the tyranny of King George III, he did not want the presidency to become a position of unlimited power. So, he voluntarily stepped down after two terms. The president, he was saying by example, is to be a servant of the people, not a ruler who clings to power.
He believed that regular changes in leadership prevent the accumulation of power either by an individual or by a faction. On that last note about factions, he abhorred political parties, even though he was well aware partisanship was something he could not save his country from.
For the next century and a half, his example ruled the day. Then after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to serve 4 terms (FDR died during that 4th term), the nation formalized Washington’s example by passing the 22nd Amendment in 1951. FDR had gone too far.
What strikes me when I read of Washington’s life and leadership is how mindful he was of the ever-present temptation to power. He avoided the social pressures to exceed his constitutional and civic constraints. And he feared the goodwill of the people that would have made it easy for him to do just that.
Washington respected the perils of popularity. When he stepped down, he broke that populist spell and confirmed that no one was indispensable to the nation’s survival. Lincoln too was highly revered, but only by half the nation. In contrast, Washington was the most universally revered figure in the nation’s history.
There were tense political factions struggling for power under him, factions that would willingly tear each other apart. But those factions would not do so while Washington was around. And yet, when Washington rode off to his beloved Mount Vernon, behold, the nation held steady under new leadership.
It might be too easy to read our contemporary political tensions into this discussion. We live in a divided country with leaders on all sides pushing the limits of bounded leadership. But I urge you to universalize this conversation about Washington’s self-imposed term limitation.
Though we are forever tempted to assume the mantle of God, we human beings are not God. It is a temptation we can learn to resist by assuming power only reluctantly and only within the limits of a rule of law that has been collectively established. It is a temptation we overcome when we learn to give way to others and step away from leadership when our time is done.
I have seen many leadership transitions in my lifetime – in government, in the church, and in the private sector. Some of those transitions have gone beautifully. Others have gone very badly.
When transitions go badly, people suffer. And I have no doubt God will hold leaders to account for such suffering.
But when transitions go well, people flourish. And transitions go well because good leaders understand the value of transitions for us as mere mortals. We are all designed to transition.
As Hebrews 9:27 reads in the King James, “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement.” In other words, transition and judgement are both inevitable, so live like it.
For my fellow US citizens, Happy Presidents Day and may all our presidents be mindful of their mortality. For those of other nations, may your human leaders remember they too are merely human, regardless the political system.
In this blog, I frequently discuss what leadership is all about. You’re welcome to subscribe for free and keep up with these posts here. I also love mentoring younger leaders, helping them become the best they can be. If you are interested, check out this page on my website.
Public domain photo: Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington
Growing up in Washington state in the 60’s and 70’s, Washington’s Birthday was a holiday from school. My Oregon cousins did not get the holiday. II wasn’t aware some other states recognized it.
Speaking of Oregon, Lincoln City has a very unique statue of Lincoln riding a horse as a young attorney and former congressman.
Did not know that. Thanks, Brian!