“No Kings” is Nothing New, by Scipio

From the founding of The Republic in 1789, there were those who believed, sincerely or otherwise, that President George Washington’s expansion of executive powers was a slow march to establishing himself as “King” of the new government.

No one was more adamant in that belief than Washington’s Vice President, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson dogged and undermined Washington every chance he got. Washington and Jefferson were friends as long as they had a common enemy, Britain.  But after the British were defeated, their political differences became increasingly apparent and acrimonious.

At the heart of their differences, was Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the Constitution. In Jefferson’s mind, since two thirds of the Constitution was written about the Legislature, that was where day-to- day governing was to be done, right?

As the nation’s first President, Washington, on the other hand, inherited a war torn and debt-ridden nation and a constitution that gave him Executive power, but no direction as “how” to use that authority.  It’s vagueness and lack of detail contrasted with the “how” details spelled out for the Legislative Branch in The Constitution.

The first clash over these two interpretations came when Washington decided to accept Alexander Hamilton’s proposal to establish a national bank to deal with the fledgling new nation’s debt problem. After all, they argued, wasn’t one of the burning issues at the Constitutional Convention the previous Confederation government’s currency “wasn’t worth a continental”?  For the new nation to prosper and pay off the national debt, Washington argued, he had the executive power to authorize the establishment of a national bank.

Despite Jefferson’s opposition, as well as his ally, James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” the Legislature passed the bill to establish a national bank.  Jefferson, and his supporters, saw this as a first step in Washington establishing himself as King, since in England, the Bank of England had become a tool of the King.

As similar issues arose, Washington made Executive decisions where none were clearly spelled out in the Constitution.  He and his supporters argued that the “original intent” of the Constitution was not to tie the Executive Branch’s hands as to its executive responsibilities.  Therefore, executive decisions, although not spelled out in The Constitution were necessary.  As commander of American forces in the Revolutionary War, Washington was well aware of decisions he had to make on his own without consultation with the Continental Convention. No one argued Jefferson’s point regarding the Articles of Confederation then.

What totally convinced Jefferson and his fellow Republicans, NOT today’s Republican Party, Wahington was on track to crown himself king, was the Whisky Rebellion.  Congress passed a whisky tax to help raise money for the government in addition to its tariff’s.  The tax fell disproportionately heavy on western states. “Moon shine” was a major cash crop in the backwoods. Unlike the coastal states, those living on the East Coast paid tariff taxes on commerce.

When western states refused to pay the tax, rebellion arose, culminating in Pittsburgh. (Pennsylvania was the “West” during this period of history BTW.)  Washington sent the militia under Alexander Hamilton’s command to forcefully put down the rebellion. The rebellion was “mostly peaceful” when 400 rebels burned down the regional tax supervisor’s house. Upon hearing Washington was sending a militia to forcefully put down the rebellion, the rebels dispersed.

Jefferson was outraged and now convinced evidence clearly pointed to Washington desired to become America’s first King.  Jefferson spent the rest of his political career legislating and leading the “No Kings” on my watch opposition to executive power.