Washington's Farewell Address

[Athena]

There are several sites for Washington's Farewell Address. I like the explanation of the address at http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica...ones/farewell/ . In this address is the justification of the Civil War. The right and wrong of that war is well worth debating.

I hope there is an interest in Washington's Farewell Address and hope someone will copy paste the concepts one by one, and that many will participate in discussion.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ahhh, George. My hero.

This speech clearly shows where we went wrong in all areas of government, and why we have what we do today.

[PatrickHenry]

In this address is the justification of the Civil War. The right and wrong of that war is well worth debating.

I don't know where you find the justification for the War between the States in Washington's address. In my opinion that war can't be justified because men have a right to freely associate to create governments of their liking. The reason for the war was to force the Confederacy to return to the Union.

I find Washington's address a forthright accusation of what the US has become. Washington, were he alive today, would lead us in a glorious revolution against the Empire that masquerades as a Republic and has grabbed his honorable name for their capital.

[Milton Bradley]

Some say that Washington's farewell address is the roadmap used to destroy this country.


Seeing what we see today, it would be difficult to find fault with this philosophy.

[SteveA]

I copied the points on that site here:

--------------
***Extolls the benefits of the federal government. "The unity of government...is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence...of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize."

This is a trick statement. Unification and liberty aren't necessarily the same thing. People have to be careful. We're a "republic" (I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands ... etc.) so unity of government means independence of its components. We're only tied together in defense of our independence.

-----------------
***Warns against the party system. "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

I agree with him here, though sadly, the manner in which democratic voting is currently done, there's a strong bias toward this. Voting methods should be changed or the additional requirement of supermajority support (as in how amendments are created) would help also.

----------------
***Stresses the importance of religion and morality. "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?"

I agree with this to some extent, though I don't think it's specifically 'religious' in nature. Government should merely provide a peaceful framework under which people can interact. It's still important for people to "fill in the blanks" in their personal lives on what they feel is desirable to see. This applies not only to religion and in a way, specifically referencing religion instead of something more general has actually been a source of conflict.

-----------------
***On stable public credit. "...cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt....it is essential that you...bear in mind, that towards the payments of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not...inconvenient and unpleasant..."

Two thumbs up here :) Though I've come to believe government may not need any forms of forced taxation at all.

-----------------
***Warns against permanent foreign alliances. "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."

Another two thumbs up!

-----------------
***On an over-powerful military establishment. "...avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty."

Two more ...

-----------------
In saying farewell to the new nation he helped create Washington pointed out that ".......the name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism..."

Agreed, though you have to be careful in how you define "Patriotism". I'd say one thing it's not is a blind following of whatever leader happens to be in power at the time. It should instead represent the desire of people to defend themselves and other with respect to their interests and the interests of others. It's not something that applies to any specific country but should be viewed more as a love of humanity in general. (Though, that doesn't necessarily mean we send 100 billion dollars in foreign aid somewhere ... there are unexpected side effects to many actions ... especially when laws are created that force something upon someone regardless of whether or not they see it as beneficial)

Personally, I think Thomas Jefferson had better views overall (but I'd likely disagree on a few points ... my political philosophy is truly Contrarian - Whatever your opinion is, mine is different LOL).

[Osborn F Enready]

Its hard to find a perfect hero in reality, but George came very close to perfect for me. I of course admire Jefferson, Adams, Paine and many others who were crucial to our independence, and quote them all often.

I think Jefferson is probably my most quoted of the bunch.

[Milton Bradley]

In saying farewell to the new nation he helped create Washington pointed out that ".......the name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism..."

Agreed, though you have to be careful in how you define "Patriotism". I'd say one thing it's not is a blind following of whatever leader happens to be in power at the time. It should instead represent the desire of people to defend themselves and other with respect to their interests and the interests of others. It's not something that applies to any specific country but should be viewed more as a love of humanity in general. (Though, that doesn't necessarily mean we send 100 billion dollars in foreign aid somewhere ... there are unexpected side effects to many actions ... especially when laws are created that force something upon someone regardless of whether or not they see it as beneficial)

Notice how Washington used the word "patriotism", and not "nationalism" where we might expect to see the latter. I am not sure of the particular difference of the vernacular at that time, but I suggest that he meant patriotism, and not nationalisn.


I always thought patriotism is about idealism, and the concepts, or priciples you value, not about blind allegience to the flag, the Republic, or a person.


The definitions of patriot, and nationalist are very close, but I think nationalist connotes more of a blind zeal to ones cause, though I suppose that is debatable.


I suspect the Washington really meant that one should do their civic duty, and fight to keep the freedoms that were won from the tyrants.


“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
-Theodore Roosevelt

[SteveA]

I always thought patriotism is about idealism, and the concepts, or priciples you value, not about blind allegience to the flag, the Republic, or a person.
...

I suspect the Washington really meant that one should do their civic duty, and fight to keep the freedoms that were won from the tyrants.

Thank you for clearing things up. Those are the sentiments I'd had but current political propaganda seems to be trying to redefine things.

Check out a couple articles in the New Hampshire State Constitution ("Live Free or Die" state, where I think they signed the Declaration of Independence):

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance ag ainst arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

[Art.] 13. [Conscientious Objectors not Compelled to Bear Arms.]No person, who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto.

[Athena]

***Extolls the benefits of the federal government. "The unity of government...is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence...of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize."

Abraham Lincoln - ( 1809 - 1865 )

Term of Office: 1861-1865
Admin. Policy: To Preserve the Union
Famous Quote: "I . . . consider . . . the Union is unbroken. . . I shall take care . . . that laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all States."
Political Affiliation: Republican
Achievement: Preserved the Union

Seems to me the Republican intent of Washington and Lincoln are the same. In the months before Lincoln's inaugeration many southern leaders had threatened to withdraw from the Union if Lincoln won the election. On Dec. 20, 1860, southern Carolina passed an Ordinance of Secession that declared the Union dissolved. By the time Lincoln became president six other states had seceeded.

Please explain how

unity of government means independence of its components. We're only tied together in defense of our independence

The word federation was also used for the union of colonies and this is in imitation of the native American federation. I wish we had used the term federation instead of republic.
I think the term republic was chosen as we were using the Rome model, not the native American model. Rome was also a republic and that sure as blazes did not mean independence from the Union. Germany was a republic and engaged in war to annex territory. How is the connection between republic, choice and independence made?

[Athena]

Warns against the party system. "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

The division into political parties was a division over the new government's responsibility to repay war debt and banking matters. This is well worth discussion, and I think the subject should have its own thread. However, at this point, I just want to say, part of the rhetoric of the cold war was one reason the USSR was so bad is it only had one party. I wish our teachers were stressing what Washington had to say about dividing into political parties, at that time.

And hey, if Washington didn't like a divison of parties, why assume he would have accepted a division of the Union? Sometimes the statements made in these forums are so confusing! What is it called when people see things the way they want to see them, and not the way they really are?

[RickSp]

I don't know where you find the justification for the War between the States in Washington's address. In my opinion that war can't be justified because men have a right to freely associate to create governments of their liking. The reason for the war was to force the Confederacy to return to the Union.

The reason for the Civil War was that without secession, slavery was doomed by the existence of the union itself.

The growth of the northern population and the expansion of free states guaranteed the end of slavery within a generation, so the Southern states had to secede. Time and growth were set to undue the great central failing of the Constitution - slavery. The South had to secede in order to preserve it's great criminal enterprise, the involuntary servitude of three million slaves. They had no more innate right to secede than they had to be slave owners.

It is interesting that Washington, the slave owner, understood both the evil of slavery and the importance of the union.

[PatrickHenry]

The growth of the northern population and the expansion of free states guaranteed the end of slavery within a generation, so the Southern states had to secede. Time and growth were set to undue the great central failing of the Constitution - slavery. The South had to secede in order to preserve it's great criminal enterprise, the involuntary servitude of three million slaves. They had no more innate right to secede than they had to be slave owners.

Totally disagree with your analysis. Dred Scott 1857 confirmed that slaves were property. What you label a criminal enterprise had the full weight of the Federal govenrnment behind it. Morally reprehensible, but totally legal, not criminal. And the Fugitive Slave Law was enforced strictly. Slavery was destined to founder, yes. Because labor saving machinery would have outpaced it economically. What modern nation uses "field hands?" Every state has a right to secede from their association with the other states. Having freely entered into an association with other entities the right to associate freely is uncontestable. To utilize force to "preserve the union" was naked aggression.