Every February, Americans observe “Presidents’ Day,” but few realize the holiday was never meant to honor all presidents equally. At its inception, the third Monday of the month was a commemoration of a singular, indispensable figure in American history: George Washington, the Father of the Nation.
Still officially designated Washington’s Birthday at the federal level, the holiday traces its origins to 1879, when Congress first established it for federal employees in Washington, D.C. By 1885, it had expanded nationwide, becoming the first federal holiday to honor an individual American. This distinction is significant. No other figure in the early republic—not Thomas Jefferson, not James Madison, not even the ever-popular Ben Franklin—was deemed so essential to America’s sense of national identity that his birthday warranted official recognition.
Things began to change in 1968, with the passage of the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. As part of a broader effort to create more three-day weekends for American workers, Washington’s Birthday was uprooted from its rightful place on February 22 and moved to the third Monday of February.
Though the federal government never formally changed the holiday’s name, popular usage did. States, retailers, and advertisers embraced “Presidents’ Day,” shifting its meaning from a celebration of Washington’s unique contributions to a vague tribute to the presidency as an institution, one that includes such luminaries as James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, and Joe Biden.
But does it really matter whether Americans celebrate Washington’s Birthday or Presidents’ Day? The answer goes beyond a matter of terminology. By replacing the focus on Washington with a generic celebration of all presidents, the nation risks obscuring the very qualities that made his leadership extraordinary.
In his book Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story, historian Wilfred M. McClay emphasizes the indispensable role of Washington in shaping the nation. Unlike so many historical figures—both before and after him—Washington did not seek power; he surrendered it. At the height of his military command, with absolute authority over the Continental Army, he voluntarily resigned, reinforcing the principle of civilian control over the military.
In 1783, when rumors of a military coup against Congress swirled, Washington quashed the conspiracy with a single, deeply personal appeal to his officers—reminding them of the fragile republic they had fought to create. When the new Constitution needed legitimacy, he presided over the convention. When the country needed a leader, he accepted the presidency. And when it was time to relinquish power, he walked away—establishing the precedent of a peaceful transfer of power that would become the bedrock of American democracy and causing his greatest adversary, King George III to call him the “the greatest man in the world.”
To commemorate Washington is to celebrate more than the man himself—it is to affirm the ideals that sustained the fragile republic he helped create. The push to restore Washington’s Birthday as a distinct holiday is not about historical nostalgia but ensuring that Americans continue to learn from his example.
Washington trusted Americans to live their lives as free people without the need for the watchful eye of an overbearing government. In an era where political power gets wielded recklessly and ambition for power receives celebrations, George Washington’s restraint acts as an enduring lesson: the greatest leaders choose to serve, not to rule.
Carl Paulus is a Senior Writer for the Goldwater Institute.
