Intended Grade Level: High School

Using Political Cartoons to Understand Historical Events

Lesson Purpose: In 2005, Mount Vernon invited several well‐known political cartoonists from newspapers across the country to draw political cartoons focusing on major issues of George Washington’s presidency. These cartoons are displayed in the galleries of the Donald W. Reynolds Museum and Education Center at Mount Vernon. This lesson will use these political cartoons to engage students in a deeper understanding of George Washington’s presidency. Lesson Objectives:

• To use political cartoons as a device for understanding three major issues that affected Washington’s presidency: the president’s title, the Jay Treaty, and the existence of a national bank.

National Standards:

NSS-C.9-12.2 FOUNDATIONS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM What are the Foundations of the American Political System?

• What is the American idea of constitutional government? • What are the distinctive characteristics of American society? • What is American political culture? • What values and principles are basic to American constitutional democracy?

NSS-C.9-12.3 PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY How Does the Government Established by the Constitution Embody the Purposes, Values, and Principles of American Democracy?

• How are power and responsibility distributed, shared, and limited in the government established by the United States Constitution?

• How is the national government organized and what does it do? • How are state and local governments organized and what do they do? • What is the place of law in the American constitutional system? • How does the American political system provide for choice and opportunities for participation?

NL-ENG.K-12.5 COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

Students employ a wide range of strategies as they write and use different writing process elements appropriately to communicate with different audiences for a variety of purposes. NL‐ENG.K‐12.7 EVALUATING DATA Students conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by posing problems. They gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from a variety of sources (e.g., print and nonprint texts, artifacts, people) to communicate their discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience. Timeframe: Approximately one class sessions Background Knowledge: Discuss with your students the fact that cartoons and other satirical drawings have been used throughout American history to make political statements and express points of view. Due to the expense of wood block engraving necessary to reproduce such drawings in the 18th century, political cartoons were not commonly found in newspapers of the time. However, engravings highlighting issues and events of the period were popularly sold. The rise of political and satirical cartoons in the United States took place in the late 19th century. Today, political cartoons and satire not only document issues and events, but also serve as important indicators of public opinion and editorial viewpoints. Procedures:

1. Have students work in pairs or small groups. Give each pair or group a blank, uncaptioned version of one of the political cartoons provided at the end of this lesson plan (“Pomp and Circumstance, “The Jay Treaty,” or “The National Bank”). Each pair or group should also receive a copy of the label that accompanies that cartoon in the Mount Vernon exhibit gallery. Finally, each group should receive the background information document that provides details about the historical issue addressed in the assigned cartoon.

2. After reading their labels and background information, students will complete the Captioning History Worksheet (included below) asking them to identify at least three significant issues gleaned from the background reading.

3. After completing the worksheet and discussing the historical issue with their partner(s), students will collaborate to brainstorm an appropriate and creative caption for their cartoon based on their understanding of the historical issue. Remind students that political cartoons should ideally use humor or satire to express a viewpoint.

4. Next, students should work together to write a brief exhibit label (75–100

words) providing context for their cartoon and caption.

5. Have student groups present their cartoons, captions, and exhibit labels to the rest of the class. As a class, compare student cartoons: How do the captions differ? How are they similar?

6. Finally, reveal to the students the original captioned cartoons completed for

Mount Vernon by the nationally syndicated political cartoonists. As a class, discuss the similarities and differences between the students’ cartoons and the cartoons created by professional artists for the Mount Vernon Education Center.

7. Conclude with a class discussion: In what ways do all the cartoons reflect

individuality on the part of the cartoonists? How effective do students think political cartoons are in expressing viewpoints and conveying historical events and situations?

8. Display the students’ cartoons and captions in the classroom.

Optional Extension Activities

1. Students will be assigned the task of sharing a current political cartoon with the class. Over the course of a month, it will be the responsibility of each student to locate a current political cartoon in a newspaper or on a news website and bring the cartoon to class on his or her assigned day. The student should be prepared to explicate both the current event the cartoon addresses and the editorial viewpoint of the cartoon’s creator. After each presentation, have students analyze and discuss how well they think the cartoon illuminates the issue at hand. In what ways is the cartoon effective and ineffective, and why? Last, have the student presenter and other class volunteers talk about whether or not they share the artist’s opinion, and why.

2. Throughout the year, have students draw their own cartoons about historical or current events and issues that are being studied in class. The cartoons should be submitted with brief labels (approximately 75 words) explaining the subject. Consider forming a cross‐curricular panel of teachers (for example, Art, History, English) to judge the quality of the cartoons based on artistic skill and overall creativity; historical accuracy, relevance, comprehension, and critical analysis; and writing style, tone, and mechanics. The top cartoons can be displayed in the classroom, on a school bulletin board, or even published in a school newspaper or on a school website.

Captioning History

You have been given an uncaptioned political cartoon along with an accompanying museum exhibit label and background information discussing the political issue or topic represented in the cartoon. Begin by reading the label and answering the first question below. 1. What historical event or issue does your cartoon address? 2. Next, read the background information and list at least three significant elements of this issue or event:

1.

2.

3. 3. List people, objects, and any actions or situations you see happening in the cartoon: People Objects Actions/Situations

Actions/Situations 4. From studying the individual elements in the cartoon, what point do you think the cartoonist is making?

 

Pomp and Circumstance: Gallery Label

What’s in a Name? When George Washington took office in 1789, the new government had numerous details to resolve including questions of title, ceremony, and etiquette. In fact, one of Congress’s earliest debates centered on Washington. What should they call him? Suggestions ranged from “His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of their Liberties” to “His Exalted High Mightiness.” Washington and Congress rejected them all, opting for the simpler “President of the United States” – later shortened to “Mr. President.”

Pomp and Circumstance: Background Information

The storm over Presidential etiquette created the first controversy in the new government. Over the years, it would cause great personal distress to George Washington who was always sensitive to public opinion and criticism. The explosive power of arguments concerning Washington’s social life—even over personal behavior and tastes that might have seemed nobody’s business but his own—grew out of the fact that the new government had no traditional focus at all, nothing concrete and established that the people could visualize when thinking of their nation, except George Washington and, through him, the office of President.

Upon his selection as commander-in-chief during the Revolutionary War, Washington became the symbol of national unity. James Madison wrote that Washington was the only aspect of the government which had really caught the imagination of the people. However, while his popularity made Washington a great symbol for the nation, it also invested him with incredible power. While few believed that Washington would seize and hold power, his extraordinary influence over the people and his power to establish precedents was awe-inspiring. Apart from his own personal behavior, many wondered how Washington’s choices for Presidential behavior would affect his successors. There was a genuine fear that though Washington was himself above reproach, his creation of a powerful presidency might make the office susceptible to future occupation by a tyrant with sinister intentions. Washington was eager to meet the country’s expectations for the behavior of a President, but how to do so was no simple matter. Every American had an individual notion or preference for Presidential behavior which was tied to political, regional, aesthetic, and moral considerations.

In establishing the protocols of the office, Washington consulted with a group of close advisors including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. They understood that to establish a new government it was essential to secure the respect and acceptance of the people. The lessons of history and existing European example demonstrated that popular support was often gained through titles and trappings which externalized the position of rulers to command and be obeyed. No one knew for sure whether or not this was a critical aspect of leadership. Adams argued forcefully that outward symbols of leadership and distinction were critically necessary

to establish the legitimacy of the government. Madison responded that Americans would equate pomp and circumstance, overt manifestations of wealth and power, with tyranny. Americans were familiar with European traditions and titles; importing these practices might better legitimate the new government in the eyes of the world but many feared that they would lead to decay and corruption.

The first debate to occupy the new government was the question of titles, ceremony, and official etiquette. The clash began in the Senate over how to address government officials. Vice-President Adams, as the president of the Senate, asked the body to appoint a committee to confer with the House on “what styles or titles it will be proper to annex to the office of President and Vice President of the United States,” in preparation for the upcoming inauguration. The committee’s first recommendation for the presidential address was “His Highness the President of the United States of America, and Protector of their Liberties.” In conference committee, the House of Representatives refused to consider formal titles. They voted that the proper address would be “To the President of the United States” with no additional title. Washington expressed his relief that matter was resolved in so simple and straightforward a manner. However, Adams suffered lasting consequences as he was forever labeled a monarchist and many suspected he wished to succeed Washington as a king.

In taking office, Washington discovered immediately that he was expected to be available to every citizen in the land. “From the time I had done breakfast and thence till dinner and afterwards till bedtime I could not get relieved from the ceremony of one visit before I had to attend to another.” Every person of the least self-importance felt he had a right to come in and stare, assess the furnishing of the house to see whether it was too grandly aristocratic or too squalidly republican, to compliment himself as well as Washington with expressions of admiration and congratulation, and then assess Washington’s reply

While the official title was “Mr. President”, Washington was almost invariably called “General Washington” in direct address. Seeking some method of escape that would not only preserve his sanity but enable him to get some work done, Washington hoped to find precedents for self-protection in the behavior of his partial predecessors, the Presidents of Congress. He learned that, far from disentangling themselves, they had become entrapped to such an extent that they had no opportunity to accomplish their work.

Two days after his inauguration, Washington published in the newspapers that he would receive “visits of compliment” only between the hours of two and three on Tuesdays and Fridays. Furthermore, Washington would return no visits nor accept invitations to entertainments. This enraged those who believed that the people should have more unfettered access to the President. Washington consulted with Madison, Hamilton, Adams and Jay as to the “line of conduct most eligible to be pursued by the President of the United States.” The precedents he now established, Washington noted, might continue for a long time, materially affecting not only the popularity but the nature of the government. The first requisite, of course, was for the President to get his work done. He needed, in addition, to avoid “the inconveniences as well as reduction of respectability by too free an intercourse and too much familiarity.” On the other hand, it was essential that he avoid giving the impression of “an ostentatious show of mimicry of sovereignty.”

Though Adams and Hamilton both recommended even more withdrawn behavior than Washington ultimately chose, his choice was to remain more cloistered than the most egalitarian of the Republicans, such as Jefferson and Madison, would have liked. Washington established two occasions a week when any respectably dressed person could, without introduction, invitation, or any prearrangement call upon the President. The first was the President’s levee for men only, every Tuesday from three to four. The other was Mrs. Washington’s tea party, for men and women, held on Friday evenings. Washington would also stage dinners on Thursdays at four o’clock in the afternoon. To avoid charges of favoritism or contests for invitations, only officials and their families would be asked to the dinners, and these in an orderly system of rotation.

The levees became well-known as stiffly formal occasions. Washington dressed in a formal, black velvet suit with sword at his side. As gentlemen entered, Washington greeted each of them with a bow. The large numbers of visitors and small number of chairs made for an uncomfortable and awkward experience. The shear numbers of guests rendered it impossible for Washington to engage in discussion with individuals. Unfortunately, Washington’s clear discomfort led to further accusations of his being haughty, aristocratic, and unapproachable.

Mrs. Washington’s tea parties were criticized for being too “splendid”. Arriving guests were announced at the door and the ladies escorted to Mrs. Washington who would be seated on a low dais at the front of the room, often with the vice-president’s

wife, Abigail Adams, at her side. After making a curtsy and engaging in a moment of conversation, each lady was conducted to a chair where she would sit until the President came up to her. After being welcomed by Washington, the lady was then free to go into the other room to enjoy the refreshments.

Throughout his time in the presidency, Washington continued to shun outside social engagements. Rather than barricading himself in the presidential house, however, he frequently engaged in public pursuits. The Washingtons enjoyed driving and riding about town, attending church, and going to the theater. These outings provided many average Americans with an opportunity to “see” the Washingtons. Moreover, while Washington tried to walk the fine line between republican squalor and aristocratic grandeur, he was a wealthy man and enjoyed the best quality goods. For example, Washington’s coach, decorated with paintings of the four seasons on the front and back doors, was instantly recognizable. It was drawn by six matched, cream-colored horses— whose hooves were blackened before leaving the stable—and attended by four slaves in livery. When Washington rode horseback it was aboard one of two white horses outfitted with a silver-mounted saddle resting on a leopard skin and decorated with seven yards of gold braiding. Undoubtedly, Washington understood the power of appearance.

The appearance of the Presidency was one of the most critical factors to resolve before the fledging federal government could convince the American people that this new, never-before-tried form of government could be trusted. While Washington was the most admired and trusted man in America—and respected around the world for his character— his behavior in office would be an indicator for the wisdom of republican government. People carefully observed Washington for signs that the vast power of the office was a corrupting influence. After all, if Washington could not resist the power going to his head, then no future president could either. However, if Washington was able to establish presidency as a uniquely American institution, responsive to the people and careful of the prerogatives of government, then this new form of government just might succeed.

Jay’s Treaty : Gallery Label

Pact with Great Britain riles the American public

By the 1790s, relations between Great Britain and the United States deteriorated nearly to the point of war. Knowing that his young country could not suffer another armed conflict, Washington turned to diplomacy.

Washington sent Supreme Court Justice John Jay to England to negotiate a treaty. Afterwards, Americans – outraged by terms they believed favored the British – burned Jay in effigy and angrily denounced Washington. The flawed agreement, however, successfully saved the country from war and gave it time to grow stronger.

Jay’s Treaty : Background Information

Relations between the United States and Great Britain had been contentious since the conclusion of the Revolutionary War; however, by 1794 tensions had reached a climax. Americans were upset by Britain’s refusal to honor all of the terms of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War. They were particularly upset by Britain’s intransigence in refusing to turn over control of military posts in the Northwest Territory. Not only were these posts were not only strategically important, but also the British presence inhibited American westward expansion through their financial and military support of the Northwest Indians. A problem of equal weight for Americans on the east coast was the closure of British West Indies ports to American shipping and seizure by the British navy of American ships and cargoes bound for French ports. Many Americans, including President George Washington, viewed these actions as threats of war. Washington was convinced the time had come to confront Great Britain, yet rather than declaring war, he decided to send a diplomatic envoy.

However, Washington found himself in a difficult situation. In his second term, political factions had begun to emerge in the government, and Washington was increasingly attacked in the popular press. The pro-French, Republican faction demanded that direct steps be taken against Britain, either military or economic. While Washington agreed that the time for action had come, he feared that the United States could not win a war against Britain. Instead, he heeded the advice of the Federalist faction, which encouraged sending a special envoy to Britain to negotiate a treaty. Washington was roundly attacked by the Republicans as being naïve if he expected mere diplomacy to succeed when Britain had so long failed to acknowledge legitimate American concerns. They accused him of pandering to the mercantilists who, in the Republican’s view, wanted to continue British trade at the cost of American freedom. Furthermore, the method that Washington used to choose his envoy irritated the Republicans. Though he asked the Senate to ratify his choice of John Jay as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Washington acted independently in choosing Jay in the first place. Also Washington directly instructed Jay without Senate input. The Republicans accused Washington of overstepping his Constitutional authority in sending a representative to negotiate a treaty, which was not directly subject to Congressional oversight. The Republicans were also troubled by Jay’s selection because he was a sitting member of the Supreme Court. To many, this appeared to be two branches of

government working together to dilute the power of the third. This seemed to be evidence that the power of the presidency was too great in comparison to that of Congress. Washington hoped that Jay would be able to negotiate a treaty that would lay Republican criticisms to rest.

Jay’s instructions were written for Washington’s signature by a committee of Federalists that included Alexander Hamilton, Alexander Ellsworth, Henry Cabot, and John Jay; however, Hamilton was the primary author. The treaty committee thought it important that Jay focus on gaining ground on the large issues even if it meant making minor, though politically-charged, concessions. They declined to send the instructions to the Senate for review even though the Constitution specifies that the Senate should give “advice and consent” for treaties. The Committee feared that Congress would overburden the instructions with impossible or unreasonable demands, so they chose to focus on a narrow range of achievable objectives in spite of popular sentiment. The committee, under Washington’s supervision, established a precedent for future Presidents regarding treaties: the President would establish the goals and boundaries for negotiation.

The treaty committee was not naïve enough to assume that Britain would agree to the major terms without a major concession in return. It was widely known that Britain’s most pressing issue with America was the unpaid debts owed to British merchants by individual Americans for goods purchased prior to the Revolutionary War. While a few Americans honored their pre-war obligations, many more used the war as an excuse to write off large debts. In return for Britain’s agreeing to the treaty terms, the United States government—with Senate approval—was prepared to assume responsibility for prewar debts up to £500,000 sterling. However, the idea of assuming pre-war debts was contentious in America. Those who did not have British obligations felt it unfair of the government to use tax money to pay the private debts of merchants and planters. While Hamilton and Washington saw this as an expedient way to put an old issue to rest, it would prove extremely controversial in the public arena.

Another impediment to a successful treaty negotiation was the popular sentiment against Great Britain and in favor of France. Because the French had been a strong American supporter during the Revolutionary War, many believed that the United States owed an allegiance to France at the expense of Great Britain. At the time

of the negotiations, France and Britain were at war; even if America did not formally ally with France, many thought that conducting open negotiations with Britain was a betrayal of France. Furthermore, many argued that America should improve the commercial relationship with France, severing the strong economic ties between America and Britain. However, Jay’s instructions made it clear that Hamilton believed that the treaty would only be successful if built on a strong foundation of economic interdependence. In essence, the strongest argument for the treaty, from Britain’s perspective, would be in cementing strong trade relations with America.

Almost immediately, even before formally meeting with Jay, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lord Grenville--and the Prime Minister--William Pitt--determined that the two most important American demands would be for restitution of seized cargo and the transfer of the Northwest posts. Britain decided to honor these two requests. Even with the British having decided to give into the two most serious demands, the negotiations still took several months. Negotiations were conducted behind closed doors without even secretaries being allowed to attend. In August 1794, Jay submitted a draft proposal to Grenville for consideration. The final version of the treaty was signed on November 19, 1794. Jay was satisfied that he had followed Hamilton’s instructions and that he had obtained concessions on the most important issues at the acceptable expense of the less important. Many in America were not impressed by the final terms once they became known.

The treaty had several provisions. Both Great Britain and the United States had won concessions. The most significant elements of the treaty follow.

United States’ Advantage

1. The Northwest Territory posts were to be turned over to the United States within one year of ratification.

2. American ships would be granted limited access to the ports in the British West Indies for the purposes of import ant export.

3. Both British citizens in Canada and American citizens in the United States could freely pass into and out of the others’ territories for the purposes of trade.

4. Trade imposts would be relatively equivalent for British and American traders in each other’s ports in order to encourage free trade.

5. The British government would compensate American merchants whose cargoes had been seized by the British navy.

6. American ships caught by the British navy taking military stores into the ports of countries with which Britain was at war would be allowed to retreat without seizure of cargoes.

7. Both sides agreed to remain neutral towards each other in times of world conflict.

8. Britain would cease its support of Spain in Spain’s efforts to limit American use of the Mississippi River.

Great Britain’s Advantage

1. Britain would not compensate Americans for slaves carried off or induced to run away during the American Revolution.

2. Britain refused to remove her naval vessels from the Great Lakes.

3. Britain refused to forgo the assistance of Indian allies in the event of war.

4. The United States would not be allowed to re-export commodities, including molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa or cotton imported from the British West Indies.

5. British traders and ships would be given free access to the Mississippi River.

6. United States government would re-pay the pre-Revolutionary War debts of American citizens owed to British creditors.

7. No provisions were made for the return of American sailors impressed into the British navy.

Upon Jay’s return to the United States, the treaty was laid before the Senate for confirmation. As a group, the Senate immediately struck the provision that forbad the re-exportation of West Indian commodities. The re-exportation trade was too vital to the economy to even consider. In regarding the rest of the Treaty, the Senate resolved itself along strict party lines; there were 20 Federalist senators and 10 Republicans. (While Washington was not a member of a political party and was a strong opponent of them, the Federalists were most reflective of his views and supportive of his policies.) The Federalists carried the day on every issue and the final vote for approval. On June 24, 1795 the Senate ratified Jay’s Treaty subject to the renegotiation of the commodities re-exportation article. The Treaty was then returned to Washington for subsequent action and implementation.

Following the Senate’s approval, Washington was convinced that it was important to introduce the Treaty to the American public on his terms. Given the popular opposition to the Treaty before it was even negotiated and some of the concessions in the final document, Washington wanted to manage its release. He authorized publication for July 1, 1795 but was beaten to the punch when a Republican senator, Stevens Mason of Virginia, sold his copy to a French minister who in turn sold it to a Republican newspaper editor. The editor quickly printed the treaty in pamphlet form and sold it at Fourth of July celebrations up and down the east coast. The popular reaction was negative in part because the timing and source proved incendiary. Towns throughout America organized public meetings and events to protest the treaty terms. John Jay was burned in effigy in Philadelphia, New York and Boston. It appeared for a time that the Treaty was sunk.

However, in the space of one year American sentiment had turned entirely in the other direction to full support of the treaty, much to the Republicans’ embarrassment. While the initial reaction to the treaty was based on wounded national pride, the turnaround came from pure national and regional self-interest, for which the treaty provided in great measure. Several events in early 1796 convinced Americans to support the Jay Treaty. When General Anthony Wayne defeated several Northwest Indian tribes in the spring of 1796, the prospect of expanded settlement into the Northwest became a far more realistic possibility, especially when coupled with the British surrender of the Northwest ports. At the same time, Spain dropped its opposition to American navigation of the Mississippi River because, under the Treaty,

Britain no longer supported its policy. With navigation secured, Americans had an outlet for frontier goods. In the east, due to expanded shipping and ship-building, the economy had vastly improved since the time that Jay had been first dispatched. America’s failure to ratify Jay’s Treaty would have threatened this new prosperity. Moreover, following the initial outpouring of overblown, anti-Treaty rhetoric, the Treaty’s supporters--including Alexander Hamilton and Noah Webster-¬responded with reasoned, measured, and articulate printed rebuttals. The persuasive arguments in its favor and the realization that the Treaty provided new avenues for economic advancement prompted Americans in all parts of the country to pressure the House of Representatives to support ratification by voting the necessary implementation funds. Washington emerged the victor from the most heated public relations battle of his administration.

The intricacies of the Jay Treaty’s effect on American politics between 1794 and 1796 can be divided into four issues:

• Anti-British vs. Pro-French Sentiment

Americans harbored harsh feelings towards Britain following the Revolutionary War. Because France had been America’s chief ally and financial supporter during the Revolution, many argued that America should abandon diplomatic and commercial ties with Britain--in spite of a shared culture and economic self¬interest--in favor of a formal alliance with France.

• British Atrocities

Many Americans saw British actions on the American frontier and the high seas as assaults on United States sovereignty that could only be answered militarily. In addition to being a violation of the Treaty of Paris, British support of hostile Indian tribes on the southern and northwestern frontiers prevented territorial expansion and participation in the lucrative fur trade. The British navy was both preventing vessels from conducting trade in the British West Indies, contrary to years of tradition, and seizing ships and cargoes as well as impressing American seamen into the navy. These were seen as direct acts of war.

• Rise of Political Parties

Politics became contentious during Washington’s second term. Some historians see the Jay Treaty as being the single most important issue leading to the formation of political parties in the United States. The Republicans used the Jay Treaty as a tool to undermine the Federalists. The Federalists supported Washington, were the stronger faction, and favored a strong central government over the states and promoted a national fiscal policy. They drew support from the merchants and capitalists in the northeast and large cities. The Republicans, whose best-known proponents were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were pro-French and more inclined to cede power to the states over the federal government. Their power base rested primarily in the agricultural south and west.

• Treaty Provisions

Many Americans held an inflated opinion of American influence and power. When the actual treaty provisions became known, many were convinced that Jay had given away too much and failed to secure enough. Washington himself was not overly enamored with the provisions, but did not think that America was in a strong enough position to secure a better treaty.

The National Bank: Gallery Label

From Disaster to Prosperity

Burdened by crushing war debt, the United States faced economic disaster in the 1790s. President Washington instructed Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton to develop a plan to rescue the country’s economy. Thus, Hamilton proposed establishing a National Bank.

The controversial idea angered detractors like Thomas Jefferson who complained that it gave the federal government too much power. But Hamilton convinced Washington that the centralized bank would stimulate investment, reduce the national debt, and strengthen America’s status abroad.

The National Bank: Background Information

The conflict over the establishment of a National Bank, under the new Constitution, would prove the first step in the formation of divisive political parties in the United States. While on its surface, the proposal for a centralized system of credit and currency would seem straightforward and simple; however, it exacerbated the differences between the political philosophies of America’s founding fathers. A line was clearly drawn between the Federalists, represented by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, and the Republicans who counted Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Speaker of the House of Representatives, James Madison, among their numbers. The issue was ultimately not about the nation’s economic health, rather it became a question of governing philosophy.

In August 1790, President George Washington instructed Hamilton to create a series of reports on the public credit with accompanying recommendations for its improvement. Unpaid Revolutionary War debts and the effects of an economic recession had combined to make American investment a risky proposition. Hamilton presented his reports to Congress on December 13 and 14, 1790. The first report recommended a series of taxes whose proceeds would be used to pay down the national debt. The second proposed the establishment of a National Bank.

Hamilton’s bank proposal was heavily influenced by the British system, though it was not a carbon copy. Hamilton’s vision for the bank was based on what he saw as America’s two most critical fiscal needs. The first need was concerned with ready access to capital and credit for investment. Hamilton argued that a national bank would provide a central location for individuals to deposit securities and specie. Thus, a national bank would lead to a concentration of capital that could be made available to the entire business community, thus promoting economic growth. He also recognized the necessity for a dependable source of circulating currency in a country chronically plagued by scarcity of specie. The bank would issue circulating notes that would be accepted as legal tender in every state. At the time, any bank could and did issue notes, which made for a confusing hodge podge of currency that could not be spent in every state. A side benefit of the National Bank would derive from the fact that 80% of the $10 million capitalization was to come from private investors; this would help bring American credit and specie levels on a par with that of European countries, thus giving the United States increased status and power in the world.

Supporters of the bank outnumbered opponents by two to one in the House and three to one in the Senate. The bank’s prospects for success appeared strong, and indeed it would eventually pass. However, the bank’s detractors were vocal in their opposition. James Madison led the charge against the bank. While writing the Constitution, Madison had been a fierce proponent of a strong, centralized government; however, issues like the bank gradually pushed him into the Republican camp, which supported states rights as opposed to a strong national government. Madison’s strongest argument against the bank was on Constitutional grounds. Madison said that because the Constitution did not specifically authorize the creation of a bank, the bank was unconstitutional. He, and other opponents, further argued that the bank would centralize capital to an unacceptable degree. It would favor a small, moneyed class in the east and on the seaboards at the expense of less wealthy and well-connected citizens in the south and west. As capital would tend to gravitate towards the bank, many people would lose access to capital. Opponents also argued that the bank might ultimately undermine the economy due to its reliance on circulating bank notes. Borrowers would export specie to foreign countries in exchange for consumer goods—to sell in America—which would exacerbate the problem of already short gold and silver supplies and in turn leave less specie to back the bank notes, which would lead to inflation. Thus, there were strong economic and social arguments on both sides of the issue.

However, some historians speculate that one of the most powerful driving forces against the bank was not economic but regional. The fight over the permanent location of the nation’s capital was both long and divisive. At the time, Virginia was the nation’s largest, wealthiest, and most powerful state; her citizens were jealous of the prerogatives this status granted. Virginians believed it was extremely important that the federal capital be geographically convenient to them. However, northerners were equally desirous of retaining the capital (which at the time of the bank crisis was in Philadelphia). The Virginia congressional delegation traded its support for the federal government’s assumption of individual state debts arising from the Revolutionary War for a Potomac River capital location. Madison and many of his Virginia colleagues feared that if a national bank was chartered, its instant status as a powerful and influential institution would tend to keep the nation’s capital in Philadelphia. The benefits of a national bank were an unacceptable trade-off for losing the national capital.

While the national bank was eventually authorized and chartered, it proved an extremely divisive issue. On one side were strong Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, whose primary interest was in strengthening the United States’ position relative to the rest of the world. The Republicans, like Jefferson and Madison, were on the other side, and feared that an overly strong central government would lead to corruption and tyranny. As the United States continued to develop national policy, these differences would only become more accentuated. While George Washington was not officially allied with a particular party, and indeed decried the formation of parities as contrary to the country’s interests, he tended to side with Hamilton on such issues. Washington’s primary concern was for the prosperity of the country as a whole and that it become stronger relative to its European counterparts. Washington did not fear a tyranny of a strong central government but rather the tyranny of small, state governments who would selfishly place their sectional interests over the good of all the people.