George Washington: Farewell Address

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

In the first paragraphs of the Farewell Address, Washington announces that he will not seek a third term as president. He feels that he has fulfilled his duty and is inclined to live a private life. He believes that such a desire neither indicates a “diminution of zeal” for America's future nor any “deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness.” He is happy that retirement does not conflict with his sense of duty or propriety. He explains that he had entered the presidency knowing his fallibilities, and the “weight of years” had only increased his desire for “the shade of retirement.” He believes “that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.”

In looking forward to retirement, Washington thanks his beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon him and the “steadfast confidence” with which he has been supported. He thanks his countrymen for the opportunities he “enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering.” He acknowledges that there have been difficult times, but “the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected.”

Washington hopes that God will continue to smile on America and that the Union of “brotherly affection” will be perpetual under “the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands.” He hopes that every department of the government will “be stamped with wisdom and virtue” and that the people's liberty and happiness will be preserved.

Washington wonders aloud if he should end the address here. However, he notes that the desire he has for the welfare of his country, “which cannot end but with my life,” and the apprehensions he has for the dangers surrounding America force him to recommend “some sentiments” that are “the result of much reflection” on “the permanency of your felicity as a people.” He offers these sentiments as “the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel.”

Washington's persistent theme throughout the address is the importance of the “national union to your collective and individual happiness.” Union, according to Washington “is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize.” Many “internal and external enemies,” Washington warns, will “covertly and insidiously” attempt to weaken the importance of Union “in your minds.” But Americans must “cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment” to the Union. It must be thought of as

the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

Washington stresses the far greater significance of American citizenship rather than allegiance to one's home state. He feels that Americans have but slight variations among them. They share “the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.” They fought a common enemy to preserve their rights and “triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”

Even beyond these fraternal bonds, Washington feels that Americans from “every portion of our country” should stay united because it is in their best interest. The maritime and manufacturing interests of the North complement the agricultural South. The economies of the East and the West will steadily become more interconnected as “the interior communications by land and water” improve. United, the individual parts will enjoy greater strength, greater resources, less frequent involvement in war, and “an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments.” Likewise, a united America will “avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments [i.e., standing armies], which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty.”

Washington says that he believes that a permanent Union by a single strong government is “indispensable.” No alliance could be as unifying. Americans have “improved” their “first essay” (i.e., the Articles of Confederation) by adopting a new Constitution. Washington concedes that “the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” The Revolution, Washington says, is now over.

Washington then alludes to the dangers facing the Union. All obstructions to laws, all combinations and associations and political parties aimed at controlling or counteracting the established government, are inherently dangerous. Led by “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men,” these groups want to “subvert the power of the people” and “usurp for themselves the reins of government.” Attempts will be made to use the amendment provision of the Constitution to “impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.” The Constitution should be given a fair chance to show its effectiveness. “Time and habit,” Washington insists, are as necessary “to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions.”

Party spirit has “baneful effects” rooted in human nature. “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension … is itself a frightful despotism.” It distracts the public councils, enfeebles the administration, agitates the community “with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another,” and foments riot and insurrection.

Washington worries that attempts are being made to “to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.” The separation of powers and the checks and balances built into the Constitution act as “the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others.” The individual departments must maintain their integrity. Specifically, Washington fears that Congress is attempting to impinge upon the powers and prerogatives of the presidency.

“Religion and morality,” Washington states, are “indispensable supports” to good government and political prosperity. They are the “great pillars of human happiness,” the “firmest props of the duties of men and citizens,” and the connection between “private and public felicity.” Coupled with religion and morality, education is of “primary importance,” especially in republics where it is “essential that public opinion should be enlightened.”

Washington stresses the importance of public credit. Government spending should be kept to a minimum, but it should always be remembered “that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it.” “Vigorous exertion” should be made in peace to discharge debts incurred during unavoidable wars. Revenues are necessary to pay debts, but revenues require taxes, which are always “inconvenient and unpleasant.”

The most memorable part of the address deals with foreign affairs. Washington counsels his countrymen to “observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it?” No nation, especially America, should harbor “a habitual hatred, or a habitual fondness” toward another country. To do so is to be slavish in some degree. America should always steer clear of European conflicts. Neutrality, as proclaimed by Washington on April 22, 1793, is surely the proper stance to avoid expensive and bloody conflicts. “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” he says. “Justice and humanity” require that every nation seek “to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.”

Washington hopes that “these counsels of an old and affectionate friend” will have a “strong and lasting impression” on his countrymen. He hopes that in his retirement he will feel “the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.”

Additional Commentary by John C. Pinheiro, Aquinas College

Toward the end of his first administration, George Washington expressed an intense interest in retiring to what he familiarly referred to as his “vine and fig tree.” Indeed, once before he had voluntarily relinquished power with fond hopes of farming and retirement from public life—in 1783, when he stepped down as commander in chief of the Continental army. Having forgone retirement to serve as president, Washington by 1792 was ready once again to return to Mount Vernon. Thus, he asked James Madison to pen for him a farewell address to the nation, and Madison did so. Yet when Hamilton and Jefferson, among others, informed Washington that the new republic might quickly disintegrate were he to leave the post of president, Washington relented and shelved Madison's draft.

By 1796 Washington was more determined than ever not to run for another term. The growing partisanship and factionalism over foreign affairs that by then had driven Hamilton and Jefferson from his administration only increased his desire to retire to his plantation. Washington also realized that in so rabid a political atmosphere, accusations that he had grown monarchical in his sentiments could best be met, and met with finality, not through words only but through action as well—a voluntary relinquishing of power combining the symbolic and the real as only Washington could. Perhaps most important, he realized that if he died in office he would be setting the worst precedent of all: The first president of the United States would have been president for life, thus offering to posterity the apparent example of an autocrat unwilling to relinquish power, even if he had wielded it without abuse.

Having made his decision, Washington this time tapped Hamilton to write the address. Hamilton worked from Madison's older version but also used an outline written by Washington. After a few months of revisions, with the president working to temper Hamilton's own ideas and partisanship, the Farewell Address was ready for publication. Unlike his 1783 address to Congress on resigning his commission, Washington's Farewell Address would be published rather than delivered as a speech; only in doing so could he directly address the people. The Farewell Address appeared first on September 19, 1796, in Philadelphia's Federalist American Daily Advertiser and then soon after in newspapers around the country. The historian Joseph Ellis, in his essay “The Farewell,” succinctly explains the mixed authorship of the address: “Some of the words were Madison's; most of the words were Hamilton's; all the ideas were Washington's” (Higginbotham, p. 234).

Washington opens the address with a salutation to “Friends and Citizens,” thus framing his announcement from the beginning as an address to the people and not to the states or to the Congress. He will “decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made” for the next presidential election. Responding to those critics who had accused him of monarchical ambitions, he pointedly notes, “I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power … to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn.” He informs Americans that he had indeed been determined to retire in 1792, but duty and patriotism had prevented him. Now, however, “patriotism does not forbid it.”

Once finished with this brief announcement of retirement, Washington proceeds to the largest portion of the address, an attempt to frame the political questions of the 1790s. He comments on the importance of the U.S. Constitution, the Union, piety, and national sentiment for the liberty and prosperity of the United States. Although it is partly a defense of his administration, this also is the portion of the address to which later generations of Americans would look for advice on domestic unity, national security, and foreign policy.

The “main pillar in the edifice of your real independence,” Washington states, is the Union of the states under the Constitution. He implores Americans to recognize “the immense value” of their “national union,” connected as it is by “sacred ties.” Indeed, he leaves no doubt about his own nationalism: “The name of American … must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” The crucible of the Revolutionary War, along with common “religion, manners, habits, and political principles,” ought to long be the foundation for a real sense of national brotherhood. In other words, Washington is urging Americans to think of themselves primarily as Americans rather than just as Virginians or New Yorkers and to remain constantly vigilant against the forces of disunion. This was a tall order in 1796 and would continue to be so throughout the period ending in the Civil War, but Washington was convinced that a strong Union did not threaten liberty and prosperity but rather preserved the former and promoted the latter.

Echoing the content of Federalist 10, written by James Madison, Washington proceeds to argue that while the regions of the United States are diverse, this variety makes them strong and interdependent. This argument appeals to individual self-interest rather than merely seeking to motivate Americans through the lofty rhetoric of brotherhood forged in battle. The increasingly commercial, industrial, and maritime North, Washington asserts, needs “the productions” of the South, and this relationship helps to expand the South's agriculture and commerce. The East, in turn, can serve as a conduit of imports and its own “productions” to the West, while the West is likewise dependent on the East for “supplies requisite to its growth and comfort” as well as for “indispensable outlets” for its products. The Union, therefore, “ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and… the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.”

Having told Americans what they have in common, Washington next offers a warning against particular “causes which may disturb our Union.” He begins with political organizations, such as parties, that are based on a mistaken belief that “there is a real difference of local interests and views.” Regional parties, which rather arise from “jealousies” and “misrepresentations,” do not reflect the reality that “fraternal affection” and interdependence bind the country. The U.S. government “has a just claim to your confidence and your support,” Washington states, because it represents equally all parts of the nation. He observes, “The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.” The United States provides ordered liberty under the law, and the duty to obey this law applies to all equally, not least because the nation is governed by popular consent. Moreover, the Constitution is, after all, amendable. Thus, any willful obstructions of the law by “combinations and associations,” even well meaning ones, undermine liberty and order because in time, once in the hands of “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” such organizations “become potent engines” destructive to the nation's ideals.

As to how often and to what extent Americans should be willing to amend their Constitution, Washington warns that a constant “spirit of innovation” driven by an addiction “to perpetual change” would enervate the whole system, subverting “what cannot be directly overthrown.” Reflecting the political philosophy of the contemporary Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke, Washington explains the importance of prudence and patience: “Time and habit are … necessary to fix the true character of governments,” while “experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country.” The best policy, then, is to let natural development, not “mere hypothesis and opinion,” dictate the pace and level of reform. In effect, Washington is assuring Americans that even without him as head of state, time will prove the Constitution's principles strong enough to “maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.”

If regional parties are the most dangerous of all factions, owing to their increasing the likelihood of disunion and civil war, even “the spirit of party generally” is dangerous to a republic's health. But “this spirit,” Washington concedes, “is inseparable from our nature.” As Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans and Hamilton's Federalists were gathering their forces for the election of 1796, this was a timely warning indeed. Perhaps parties are necessary bulwarks of liberty in some countries, Washington muses, but not in nations “of the popular character.” Parties end up serving neither the state nor the people, instead engorging themselves “on the ruins of public liberty.”

More dangerous still, partisanship, growing as it does out of weaknesses in human nature, “kindles the animosity” of citizens and regions against one another, enshrining demagoguery in political practice. Alluding to the debate over the proper American policy toward the war in Europe, Washington warns that partisanship also “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption.” Although Washington's Federalist supporters would have interpreted this last point as a jab at the Francophile Democratic-Republican Party, he was speaking to the pro-British Federalists as well. (So important is this point that Washington later addresses foreign policy more fully.) Since 1796 these injunctions against “the spirit of party” have been the least followed of all the allegedly timeless advice in Washington's Farewell Address, other than in platitudes proffered by normally rabid partisans or in more serious wartime attempts at national unity.

The Constitution and prescriptive laws, Washington continues, can do only so much to guard against the dark but ineradicable aspects of human nature. If Americans really are to cultivate a sense of fraternity and national sentiment, “religion and morality are indispensable.” Washington believed that morality issues from religion, not the other way around, and he condemns abstract theorizing about whether “morality can be maintained without religion,” as “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” This need for “virtue or morality,” that is, for piety, applies equally to the governors as well as to the governed. Indeed, piety is deemed “a necessary spring of popular government.” Even as piety acts as a key ingredient in ensuring the vitality of popular government, so, too, does education. “Public opinion,” Washington asserts, “should be enlightened.” One of his dreams for the new capital city on the Potomac River was a national university. Although he does not say as much here, the implication would have been hard for readers of the address to miss.

Having briefly drawn the connection between education and self-government, Washington next, with only a little less brevity, discusses economics. He implores his readers to “cherish public credit,” by which he means the good financial standing of the U.S. government. He criticizes the carrying of a national debt as “ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.” Military disbursements composed the bulk of U.S. government expenditures in 1796, and so Washington concludes that the surest way to avoid significant debt is by “cultivating peace.” However, he very typically strikes a tone of moderation, adding that “timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it.” Weakness and ill-preparedness could end up costing more in the long run, so a balanced view of preparation would be necessary. In times of peace, he says, the proper duty of the U.S. government is to pay its debts as quickly as possible.

Washington's admonitions on public credit serve as an effective introduction to the second-longest portion of the Farewell Address, that concerning foreign relations. This part of the address is best understood in the context of divisions among Americans over U.S.-French and U.S.-British relations in 1796. Later Americans would come to see in this portion timeless advice on the wisdom of noninterventionism and even isolationism.

Washington's thoughts on foreign relations in his Farewell Address are largely an explication of the philosophy behind the Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793. The political atmosphere remained tense, with Democratic-Republicans desiring to support France and possibly war against Great Britain. These tensions were exacerbated by that party's lingering mistrust of Washington as a result of his support for the pro-British Jay Treaty, which had finally gone into effect earlier in 1796. Yet, as with neutrality, Washington had seen the Jay Treaty as the most prudent course of action for the young country to take. Thus in his address he advises Americans to deal honestly and “cultivate peace” with all nations—and to Democratic-Republicans, this meant toward Great Britain. But unmistakably this also was a message to those Federalists who so clearly wished to wage war on France. He remarks, “Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it?” Good policy, that is, ought to flow from morality, which finds its source in religion. “The permanent felicity of a nation,” Washington claims, is connected by Providence with its virtue.

Much like the Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero in his On Duties, Washington is arguing here that advantage and right always go together, even in foreign policy. He deems that “in the course of time and things … any temporary advantages” will more than be outweighed by a just, benevolent foreign policy. Although he was speaking in generalities, Washington is clear: “Inveterate antipathies” and “passionate attachments” to certain nations “should be excluded,” to be replaced by “just and amicable feelings towards all.” “Habitual hatred” and “habitual fondness” equally enslave a nation by leading it “astray from its duty and its interest.” Calling on historical lessons from the Roman Republic, the decline of which Cicero had done so much to forestall, Washington maintains that “foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government” because under it “tools and dupes” come to surrender their own interests unknowingly.

So, then, how ought the American Republic conduct its foreign relations? According to Washington, “the great rule of conduct” is to have as much commerce and “as little political connection as possible” with other nations. He recognizes the connections between the United States and Europe but points out that geographical isolation affords America advantages, the greatest of which is that only by choice will the United States become involved in the “frequent controversies” in Europe. “Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation?” Washington asks. “Why… entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?” The United States, for the sake of its “peace and prosperity,” should “steer clear of permanent alliances.” Notably, nowhere does Washington use the term “entangling alliances,” although Americans have long attributed it to him; ironically, the first to use that phrase would be Thomas Jefferson at his 1801 presidential inauguration. Yet the idea is surely present here: Washington asserts that “interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe” will lead only to disaster, now and in the future.

Thanking his “countrymen” for taking the time to read “these counsels of an old and affectionate friend,” Washington closes with an explicit endorsement of his Proclamation of Neutrality, saying, “the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.” His overriding motivation during his administration, and specifically with the proclamation (and by extension, with the Jay Treaty), “has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions.” Washington hopes that his Farewell Address “will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish.” Unstated is his hope that Americans will see his allegedly pro-British policies in the same light that he does: that of prudence, piety, and patriotism.