Connecting the President and the People: Washington's Neutrality, Genet's Challenge, and Hamilton's Fight for Public Support

Abstract

As the French Revolution intensified with the execution of King Louis XVI in 1793, so did the American public's interest in foreign affairs. Since President George Washington seized the initiative in foreign affairs (rather than Congress, as was expected by many at the time), the executive became the focal point of the developing relationship between the American public and the newly established federal government. The events centered on the Washington administration and the French Minister, Edmond Genet, placed the office of president of the United States squarely at the intersection of foreign affairs and popular politics. By focusing on the political activity that swirled around President George Washington's controversial proclamation of neutrality, this essay examines how Federalists, especially the administration's own Alexander Hamilton, tried to shape the public's understanding of the proclamation. When Washington thrust his administration into the burgeoning foreign crisis, the president put himself and the executive office at the center of the public debate. By looking at newspaper essays, community resolutions, presidential replies, and the Gideon Henfield trial and verdict, this essay argues that the Washington administration experienced the power of public opinion as an advantageous political force as well as an obstacle to its policy of neutrality. Washington's proclamation of neutrality, which injected executive authority into the realm of foreign affairs at a time when the American public was intensely interested in foreign events, contributed to the developing relationship between the American people and the newly established executive office.

The Historical PresidencyPresidential Incentives, Bureaucratic Control, and Party Building in the Republican Era

“…Importantly, the results also reveal that presidents appeared to be successful in using the bureaucracy to meet these goals. Consistent with research that calls into question periodization schemes that distinguish modern presidents from their predecessors (Adler ; Ellis and Walker ; Galvin and Shogan ; Klinghard ; Skowronek , ; Young ), the findings presented in this article suggest that nineteenth‐century presidents were more central in directing government activity than is generally recognized, though their efforts may have been in service of different goals.…”

Presidential Influence in an Era of Congressional Dominance

“…In Constitutional Government Wilson (1908) articulated a new vision of the American political order that placed the president squarely at the center, and Lowi (1986, vii) described the realization of this vision as the founding of a "Second Republic." However, a range of scholars have questioned the merits of such a bifurcacted periodization, arguing instead that many elements of the modern presidency appeared far earlier in history than generally acknowledged (Adler 2013;Cohen 2012;Ellis and Walker 2007;Galvin and Shogan 2004;Klinghard 2005;Korzi 2004;Laracey 2002;Young 2011) and calling for a reconceptualization of the links between the historical and contemporary presidency (Skowronek 1993;. However, a range of scholars have questioned the merits of such a bifurcacted periodization, arguing instead that many elements of the modern presidency appeared far earlier in history than generally acknowledged (Adler 2013;Cohen 2012;Ellis and Walker 2007;Galvin and Shogan 2004;Klinghard 2005;Korzi 2004;Laracey 2002;Young 2011) and calling for a reconceptualization of the links between the historical and contemporary presidency (Skowronek 1993;.…”

“…In Constitutional Government Wilson (1908) articulated a new vision of the American political order that placed the president squarely at the center, and Lowi (1986, vii) described the realization of this vision as the founding of a “Second Republic.” Reflecting on these developments, proponents of the modern presidency thesis argued that “the transformation of the office has been so profound that the modern presidencies have more in common with one another in the opportunities they provide and the demands they place on their incumbents than they have with the entire sweep of traditional presidencies from Washington’s to Hoover’s” (Greenstein 1982, 3). However, a range of scholars have questioned the merits of such a bifurcacted periodization, arguing instead that many elements of the modern presidency appeared far earlier in history than generally acknowledged (Adler 2013; Cohen 2012; Ellis and Walker 2007; Galvin and Shogan 2004; Klinghard 2005; 2010; Korzi 2004; Laracey 2002; Young 2011) and calling for a reconceptualization of the links between the historical and contemporary presidency (Skowronek 1993; 2002).…”

The Historical Presidency: “Generalissimo of the Nation”: War Making and the Presidency in the Early Republic

“…Michael Korzi () presents new evidence demonstrating the linkages between presidents and the populace in the nineteenth century, a finding confirmed by Ellis and Walker (). Historian Christopher Young () reveals the links between presidents and public opinion starting from Washington's presidency. Other work has documented recurring cycles of presidential populism (Bimes and Mulroy ), the extent to which early presidents centralized their resources and politicized their office (Galvin and Shogan ), and how the partisan press was used as a method of connecting with the public (Laracey ).…”