Yes, you're at your very best when you point out that George Washington just didn't understand as clearly as you do the true meaning of our Constitution . I'm surprised you'd even discuss these matters with peons like us. ;-)
So, if Washington said that what the Constitution really means is that slaves count for 4/5 or that it permits the federal government to tax people in order to provide the Episcopalian Church an annual subsidy, we should just accept it as the “true meaning” of the Constitution because Washington said it?
There is a reason the document was written. And on every issue on which the Federalists usurped power for the federal government, you can find Founders who participated in the ratification objecting.
This is one of the problems of postmodernism: texts have no meaning; all we have are “narratives” about the text. I think the text speaks for itself on most points, and I don’t regard oracular pronouncements or actions taken by Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, or anyone else as amending the text, which was not the private property of the very small circle of people whose names have been discussed.