George Washington’s Farewell Address explains to citizens of the young country his reasons for refusing to serve a third term as President, as well as imparting a great deal of advice on matters of state, large and small. In fact, Washington had not desired more than the initial term that he served, but he eventually changed his mind. The text as delivered was not written solely by Washington, but in conjunction with James Madison and especially Alexander Hamilton (Perry, 2013).
It was the product of a long evolution, as well as several hands; its origin lying in a similar message he had prepared upon deciding (before changing his mind) not to serve a second term as President. Apparently, Washington judged one of the drafts produced by Hamilton as excessively long. Given the length and not infrequent monotony of the finished product one shudders to imagine the girth of the rejected draft. Judging from the content, it seems likely that one reason Washington sought to exit his office was that he was tired of the Federalist / anti-Federalist debate. A great deal of Address directly or indirectly bears on this debate, or Washington’s reasons for thinking that the debate should be abandoned.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Washington’s Farewell Address Analysis".
Three themes from the Address will be the focus here. The first, and arguably the most important theme, has already been mentioned. Washington repeatedly implores Americans to set aside their differences in favor of supporting the Union without which none of the country’s great virtues, on his view, would be possible. The second theme is Washington’s apparent antagonism toward the idea of a political party. The final theme is what may be called Washington’s isolationism with respect to American foreign policy.
By far the most discussed issue in the Address is Washington’s extensive case for setting aside state-based or regional differences in favor of fidelity and allegiance to the Union as a whole. One gets the impression that, not only was Washington weary of Federalist / anti-Federalist debate, as mentioned earlier, but that he foresaw larger problems, such as that which developed between the South and the North. Indeed, Washington explicitly mentions regional differences, including those between the North and the South (pp. 8-9). Washington could not fail to be conscious of the significance of the enormous size of the North American continent, a large portion of which had been invaded and occupied by his fledgling country. Much remained uncertain, particularly to the West. His central point is to emphasize the dangers “of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations” (p. 16). Today the antagonism between individual states, especially those in the South, toward the Federal government has not disappeared. It remains, for example, in the refusal to stop celebrating the Confederate flag, despite its connotations. More generally, virtually all talk of “states’ rights” is today code for resisting civil rights progress. During Washington’s time, slave owners would have agreed that the Federal government should be kept out of states’ business.
Washington speaks also of the dangers inherent in what he calls “the spirit of party” (p. 16). It is natural to understand him to be talking about what we understand today as political parties. Care is required, however. For Washington says things about “parties” which are not true of political parties as we understand them, such as that all governments feature them (fascist or totalitarian governments, in addition to communist governments such as modern China’s, tend not to have political parties in our sense). What then is Washington describing? An additional clue is his claim that of such parties, “the popular form” is the worst. Since elsewhere in the document Washington extols, and even exaggerates, the extent to which American democracy is controlled by “the people”, the fact that he denigrates the popular form of these parties suggests that he means instead something like faction and prejudice, especially those as directed against the Union. A good contemporary example of what Washington seems to have in mind is those who support Trump—they are vocal and opinionated without having the qualifications for either attribute. They are a surprisingly large faction which threatens, in tandem with their thin-skinned hero, to tear the country apart. During Washington’s time anti-Federalists would have been likely to oppose his pro-Union, anti-faction vehemence.
The third aspect of Washington’s Address is his insistence that America should stay out of world affairs that do not directly involve it, for example by refusing to support or oppose other countries except insofar as doing so is in our interests. This is akin to the doctrine of isolationism, of the sort, maintained in Congress, that kept the U.S. out of World War II until Roosevelt could finally provoke Japan into attacking us. There were certainly contrary currents in Washington’s time, for example those that led to America stealing much of Mexico.
In my opinion, while no one could reasonably challenge the importance of Washington’s Address as an important historical document, it is far too long and frequently monotonous. Perhaps people then simply had more patience; and it cannot be denied that it is beautifully written. But it would surely have been far more effective at half of its actual length. This paper has briefly commented upon three key aspects of the Address, together with mentioning some contemporary analogs of them. The first was the obvious antipathy that Washington has for the anti-Federalist position that too much power had been concentrated in the Union. The second was the curious case of what Washington means by his talk of “parties”. Finally, the third aspect of the Address was the isolationism in foreign affairs that Washington counseled, together with his strange view that nothing could truly motivate a country but self-interest.
- Perry, W. (2013). Washington’s Farewell Address. Retrieved from http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/washingtons-farewell-address/ 22 September 2018.
- Washington, G. (1796). Farewell Address. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov 22 September 2018.
