George Washington’s Farewell Address and First Inaugural Address | A Primary Source Close Read w/BRI

0:03 Hello, and welcome to Close Reading with the Bill of Rights Institute. My name is Kirk Higgins. I’m the senior manager for Education here at the Bill of Rights Institute, and I am joined by my colleague, Tony Williams. Hello Kirk. Hello everyone. All our teachers and students out there. Yeah. We appreciate you all tuning in. Today we have the task of taking a close look at Washington, George Washington’s first inaugural address and his farewell address. And I’m excited to talk to you about this, Tony, because George Washington is someone that you have thought and written a lot about over the years as you’ve been sort of thinking about US. History and in your work with the Bill of Rights Institute. And I was wondering, just to start with, if you could just give us just sort of a brief background. First of all, the first inaugural address. So we know that George Washington was elected to be the first president after the Constitutional Convention. After serving as president of the convention, I think he wasn’t very active in the ratification process. But you can correct me if I’m wrong there. And in fact, throughout the day today, you should be welcome to correct me and all those who are listening. If you have thoughts or questions, please add them in the comments below. We’ll try to respond to as many of them as possible, but after he’s elected, he’s in retirement at Mount Vernon. He decides to come back and he gives this inaugural address. So I was wondering if you could kind of set the stage for what that inaugural address is, why he decided to do an inaugural address in the first place, and how this came about. Right. No, that’s great context. Thanks, Kirk. So the Constitution was indeed recently ratified, and Washington, as you say, was president of the convention. And he did not participate in sort of the partisan fray between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists. I think he wanted to stay above that, above that partisanship. He had attended the convention and affixed his signature to the document, and he wrote a letter or two that he knew would be made public, but all of that announced the support for it. So he didn’t need to go to Richmond, to the Virginia Ratifying Convention or really write Federalist Papers or anything like that. Everyone knew he supported this new government and this new document, and I think that’s really important. And everyone knew he was going to be the first president. They really shaped the presidency with Washington in mind, and he is unanimously elected president. And he was very reluctant, though he had served his country for a number of years in the war, was away from home, Mount Vernon, for some eight years, and had already served in public life for several decades. And I think he says to one friend, he felt like a prisoner going to his execution.

3:04 I mean, that’s how much he really wanted to stay at home with Martha and not get engagements for the whirly gig of politics. But I think he really felt the call of his country and like a good Roman, if you will, he answered that call. But I also think it’s important to note that it wasn’t just the presidency but the Congress is up and going already. The representatives have started assembling in March and so they were trying to assemble a quorum and help start setting up the government and so forth. So the other branches are government are getting to work even before Washington arrives. And it’s important to note that the first capital was of course in New York, right. No Washington DC yet. Well, I’m going to go ahead and share my screen here so we can start picking up the document because I think you noted a couple of things that I wanted to touch on right at the beginning, which we’re talking about that reluctance. And it was interesting to me in reading through the first inaugural that that reluctance is right out in the open and I think Washington fascinates me and I think Ron Chernow and his biography Washington Life kind of points this out, that Washington is kind of this marvel man and we see him as like the actions that he took. But it’s really hard to get to the real person that is Washington. And it struck me, reading these first opening lines as flowery as they are, that if this was anyone else, you’d almost think this is just another politician who’s thrown out like, oh, I don’t want to do this, but you’ve called me out and my country says here on line four, I was summoned by my country whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondness predilection and in my flattering hopes with an immutable decision as the asylum of my declining years. I think from a lot of politicians in American history you pass over that line like, oh yeah, it’s rhetorical, whatever else. But for some reason, reading this from Washington, you really get the sense that he meant it and that it was genuine, right. And I think it’s really important to note that Washington, whenever he accepted the commander in chief, accepted various the presidency of the convention and now the presidency for the nation is he expresses that humility and that virtue. And I think that it was really sincerely meant. Don’t forget he had also not only accepted those offices previously, but he had retired from them. And for him those retirements were sacred obligations, right? And it was only a Caesar who had that ambition for power and who lusted after that power. Rather, he wanted to be in the cincinnatus, that citizen who is called to service but then retires to his power, retires to his estate.

6:06 And I think for Washington, as you comb through his letters and other statements, they’re really sincerely held predilections on his part, that he’s willing to serve his country, but he wants to retire and not stuck to their burdens of office. One thing to keep in mind, too, that I think is interesting to point out for students as well, is the practicality of this first Inaugural Address. So obviously, Washington is coming in without any precedent. And so I’m just curious. He writes this, and I didn’t include it here, but the opening is to the country and the members of the House of Representatives in the Senate. So he’s really delivering this to Congress ostensibly, and that seems to be very deliberate. And he touches on that a little bit in the document as well. Can you maybe talk just a little bit about why he was doing that, what he was hoping to accomplish with this? And I also know that one of those members of Congress, James Madison, is rumored to have had a hand in the authoring of this Inaugural. If you had any comments or thoughts on that as well. Yeah, well, maybe we’ll do that first. Madison and Washington were very close during this period, and Madison was a trusted advisor, and he actually really helped Washington write this Inaugural Address. And the funny thing is, Madison then penned the response of the House of Representatives and to Washington thanking him. And then Madison wrote the note from Washington thanking the Congress for thanking him. So Madison is having this monologue with himself, if you will. But it is important, I think, that Washington is not only writing to his fellow citizens, which he considers himself one, but also to the Congress. Right. He really saw a differential understanding to the main branch of government, really representing the people very closely. And so Washington wants to lay down important precedents, of which that is no small precedent in his thinking that this is the people’s government. Yeah, and I think some of that comes out here, too. And here I’m looking, just starting at 27, but I know there’s a couple of things in this section that we wanted to talk about, but it says such being the impression under which I have an obedience to the public summons repaired to the present station. It would be peculiarly improper to omit in the first official act my fervent separations. The Almighty being who rules over the universe and who provides up the Council of nations and his provisional aid can supply every human defect that his people benediction may consecrate

9:10 to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States. After that, though, he goes into talking about really what he’s seeing, I think, as the role of government, a government government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes. And I’m curious here. He seems to be trying to orient the nation. It’s almost like, I don’t know, like an opening paragraph. This entire document is almost like an opening paragraph to not only the rest of his presidency, but like the direction he feels the nation should go. Am I wrong? When I was reading through this, it seems like that’s what he’s pointing to is sort of like the purpose of government is sort of what he’s getting at here. Right. I think that he frames it as a prayer to the Almighty. But I do think that within that context, it’s a very lucky and sentiment that he’s expressing here. It’s really right out of the Declaration of Independence, right? So he’s referring to the liberties of the people, the happiness of the people. And so government is instituted to protect those liberties and so that the people may pursue their unhappiness. And he says a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes. I mean, he’s very much expressed in the idea of we the people or popular sovereignty, popular government for Washington. This is the whole reason why they fought a revolution for years, was to have that popular government. So I think he’s expressing some noble Lockheean sentiments here and laying it down right at the beginning, right in his first inaugural address, laying down the idea of the people liberties, natural rights and eligible rights and the purpose of government to protect those rights and to allow them to live freely and govern themselves. Yeah, I think that idea of what is required of us to govern ourselves is another theme that struck me throughout this document. And I’ll just pause really quickly to say again, if anybody has any questions or anything that you want to field to Tony your eye, feel free to put them down in the comments below. We’ll try and respond to as many of those as we can. But turning back here to looking at the document, he seems to be harkening a lot to the revolution as well, which is interesting because it’s almost as if the Articles of Confederation never happened. It seems as though we’re kind of jumping and he says in the important revolution just accomplished the system of the united government, which I think there he’s talking about almost a second revolution. It with the foundation of the Constitution. But this very much does seem like there’s no pause between the revolution ending in 1783 and Washington being inaugurated 1789. Was that the way that they were viewing it? Or is that just, again, my sort of sloppy reading of the document?

12:15 You know, I think that what Washington is doing here. His purpose is not to provide a summary of the past 15 years. Right. He’s not playing historian here, but what I think he’s doing is laying down a framework here for unity, unity in this new government, unity of the people. We just came out of a very rancorous, deliberative process over the Constitution, and there was a very fierce debate about it. And the outcome getting that new Constitution ratified was never certain. Right. It was not a guaranteed outcome. And so I think Washington is trying to sort of smooth that over and really promote a unity, saying, okay, we have that debate. It’s been settled. We have this new government, and we’re in it together, you might say. Yes, and I really like the line he concludes with, here you will join me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence. It’s very much that hopeful tone in one of unity, which, like you said, is required, especially at a moment when a new government is being put out. And not even all 13 colonies had signed on at this point. Right. Because I think Rhode Island was still holding out. And North Carolina. And North Carolina. Yeah, and I would say that Washington has a real sense here throughout the deliberations over the Constitution, setting up the new government, that this is an auspicious time, that it’s a time of enlightenment. It’s a time where it says elsewhere that the sort of political principles and rights of humankind have never been more clearly understood. And he’s also looking at these sort of auspicious beginnings of the Republic in a very deliberative process right, almost. That the world had not seen before. And so I think Washington is saying, look, we’ve been very blessed, very fortunate to have such unique circumstances in which to build a republic. And I think he’s setting up the idea that we have a duty to preserve that, we have a duty to make it work because he and many others feared that it would not. Right. Republics and democracies are history. There are only a handful of examples, but they had all failed. Right. And so I think he’s setting up that discussion. Yeah, I think that’s all really interesting. And here in this section, I think we’re getting back into what we’re referring to earlier, which is Washington as precedent setter and that reference for the Congress that he feels he needs to have.

15:20 I think it’s interesting that it has made the duty of the president to recommend to your consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. Saying that we’re recommending consideration, I think, is not something we hear very often from any branch of the government these days. But the fact that Washington went out of his way to underline that and yet not to go into anything political, it is interesting to me that there’s not a lot of political statements he’s not outlining, which I think has become sort of the way these are approached now is to sort of outline the platform that the new executive is going to be executing on. Washington is not doing that here. It’s almost like instead of talking about his platform, he’s going to talk about how he’s going to be president, which seems to be a departure, at least from the way we may handle it now. A lot of this is principles it’s about precedents. It’s about a common purpose, laying down that spirit. It’s not a prescriptive list of his legislative agenda, what he’s going to achieve in the next 100 days or the next four years, whatever. And so it does look in many ways very different from our modern Inaugural addresses. And I think here he’s really laying down like, look, if we’re going to have a republic, if this is going to survive, we need to do certain things. And so it’s sort of an advisory as well to the people. I guess I see here. And this is even before parties really broke out, but down toward can’t quite tell where this is, but starting within here, he says, in these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges that as on one side, no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views or party animosities will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests. To me, it seems like there he’s really speaking to those who may have opposed the Constitution and yet kind of warning to say, look, we’re engaging in something that is bigger than ourselves. We need to really commit to seeing it that way, or there may be some tension. Right. I think that’s right. And I think that it’s kind of funny reading this, because you think about how divisive the 1790s were, and so a lot of his hopes did not really come true. I mean, there’s sectionalism in the 1790s. There’s a sort of rank partisanship. I think Madison really understood that in Federalist 10, where he warned about these factions and so forth because they’re part of human nature.

18:20 And I think Washington is hopeful, you see, in messages throughout the 1780s and really even before that, and certainly in the 1790s while President, he’s really committed to this idea of a national union, to nationhood itself, and having that spirit of a common purpose, a common cause as Americans. And I think he has a good reason to do that. One is I think he’s just committed to that ideal. But I think that we needn’t forget that he staked so much of his personal reputation throughout an entire career over many decades of public service to that ideal, to that union, to that nation. And if it failed, it was going to affect him personally and his lasting reputation throughout the ages. So he had a strong sense of destiny, of historical purpose in mind, and of his own role. And the Founders generally, their role in this for the ages, if you will. Well, and speaking of that sort of personal stake in things, I see Julie asked us a question. Did anyone respond negatively to this address? I guess. What did people make of the first Inaugural? Was it even something was it just sort of something that happened and was a blip, or was it big news? I think that everything that I read was very positive. We don’t really have a strong opposition press starting yet. In a certain way, if I can put this informally. There was sort of a love fest early on about where we’re all in this together and we’re going to set up the government and we’re all Americans and isn’t this great? And it didn’t take long for that to collapse into partisanship and rancor and so forth and debates over foreign policy and domestic policy. But I think at least for the first year or two, there was a great national unity and really that sort of unwillingness to criticize Washington because he was the father of his country. That even lasted a few more years. And it’s really sort of only in his second administration that there is kind of oblique or even direct personal attacks on Washington. Yeah, and I see Jessica asks a question related to that as well about Washington’s position toward political parties. And we’ll get back to that, I think, in just a couple of minutes here when we talk about the farewell, because he was certainly against that partisanship and he was, I think, concerned that partisanship or put another way, the loyalty to party

21:21 would come at the expense of the national common interest or at the expense of being able to find and work towards common cause or common compromise. Because compromise isn’t always you get half and I get half. It’s more complicated than that. But that ability to sort of set aside party interests in favor of national interest, I think it’s something that Washington was very concerned about. Yeah, absolutely, we will get to that. But I think there’s some really important things on the slide right here. Washington talks a lot where he’s talking about the union between virtue and happiness on that third line, between duty and advantage and the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy. He’s really promoting the idea that a self governing people needs to be a moral, needs to be a virtuous people. They need to literally be self governing as citizens. And so he’s promoting that sense of civic duties, of civic obligations and responsibilities you could citizen. And it’s only that, and he agrees with almost every other founder on that, that you needed a moral and virtuous self governing people if a republic was going to last. Because don’t forget, in a monarchy we simply have to obey. We don’t have to be virtuous. But in a republic they saw that as an essential recipe, part of the recipe and the success of a lasting republic. And he really talks about that in those last few lines areas in this sort of very famous expression of American exceptionalism. He says, since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply and perhaps as finely staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people, we can see that american exceptionalism, not only here, but broadly, perhaps I might see it as arrogance or ethnocentrism and that kind of thing. And I think we need to be wary that it doesn’t become a jinguism or an arrogance. But I think there’s a lot of humility here, actually. I think Washington is saying, look, in our perfect circumstances here in an enlightened age under a deliberative process, if we’re not able to make this republic last and be a good republic, then it probably won’t work, won’t work anywhere else because they all have less than favorable circumstances that we have.

24:23 So it’s a duty, it’s a charge to the American people to build a lasting republic based upon a model of not only good leadership but also good citizenship. It’s really a call to action, if you will, to a fellow citizen. Yeah, I think that’s a really interesting way to look at that, because self government requires a lot of the individuals who are in it. And one thing, even when we’re talking about compromised political parties, one of those habits and virtues that always comes to mind for me is the necessity to listen, particularly when you’re in a disagreement. Right. It’s hard to do that. And it takes practice and deliberate action to say, I am going to listen. I mean, in our personal lives, we see this all the time, but it’s similarly difficult for those in political office. And that to me seems what Washington is pointing towards is that those kinds of habits or virtues are what you need to be mindful of and that we all need to practice and work towards. Right. I mean, a popular government is predicated upon the people and the deliberative process and participatory citizenship. If those things aren’t there, it fails. Yeah. And so I guess just to kind of wrap up our conversation with the inaugural, because I know we’re getting tight on time and the farewell is a lot longer than this one, but did you have any final thoughts here, Tony, before we jump to the next document? Yeah, just one. The one prescriptive thing that he does is what you have on the screen. He does commend to the American people a Bill of Rights. He recommends that the first Congress take that up and he really promotes what he calls a reverence for the characteristic rights of free men, of human beings. And so don’t forget, the President doesn’t sign these amendments, but he does recommend it to them. And I think he has an eye here towards not appeasing, but a magnanimous policy towards the anti Federalist towards the Federal fulfilling their promise made during the ratification debate to pass that Bill of Rights if it were ratified. So I think he sees that as a sacred obligation not only to the Anti-Federalist, but also to just free government in general. So that’s one thing he promotes. Yeah, one of many. And I’ll go ahead and apologize upfront to everybody. We picked two really rich documents, so we’re not going to be able to go through line by line, but I hope this has given you a sense for both. We’ll switch to the Farewell address here in a second, but also would encourage you. If you have any other follow up questions,

27:24 even after this conversation, feel free to reach out to us or on Twitter and on Facebook or hear on YouTube to leave comments. And we’ll try to continue this conversation even after we wrap up here. And as I’m going to the Farewell Tony, I see that Peter asks a question about when it is that we started delivering these inaugural addresses to a public audience. Do you happen to know when that was? I just can’t recall off the top of my head, but his inauguration was public to his fellow citizens. He was up there on the balcony, Federal Hall, I believe, and his fellow citizens witnessed this. And then he did go into the chamber and deliver the address. But notice, Washington is very much a man who loves theater and wanted to set the right precedence and so understood the importance of those draft. Gestures to the people, to the self governing body of Congress. Yeah. And I think that is something that has certainly carried on. I don’t know when the first public address was made, but I do know that traditionally, when inaugural addresses were given publicly, they were given on the east side of the White House. But it was Ronald Reagan who switched it to the west side of the White House so that he could have ostensibly so he was facing California, but it was also, I think, so you could have the entire mall filled with people. And that is now, to this day, traditionally where we now give the inaugural address. So, Peter, I apologize. Not quite the answer you’re probably looking for, but I’ve always thought that Ronald Reagan, certainly being a president who is conscious of theater as a part of being a public official, made that move. So switching to the Farewell Address now, we fast forwarded from 1780, 1796. A few things happened in between. We won’t bother that. But Washington, he serves that first term, I think nearly doesn’t run for re election for a second term. I would put it this way, at least in my reading. He allows himself to be convinced that a second term is required of him and so serves the second term. But after two terms, he is well and truly tired of being a public official. And I guess quickly, what was his calculus for that? Was it that he wanted to set a two term precedent, or was it that he was just genuinely exhausted by the politics? Or did he feel as though that it was now for the best interests of the nation to go through the process of having and something he touches on here in the opening paragraph having an election that allows for another individual to take charge. Right. I think Washington really wanted to retire after his first term.

30:25 He really did. He really wanted to go back to Mount Vernon and live out his remaining days with Martha on his plantation. And he very reluctantly stayed in office. And it was only because his cabinet and the national government, national politics and the country in general, was very divided very quickly. There was a fierce partisanship, particularly over Hamilton’s economic plans, but also foreign policy issues and many others. It was a great deal of party rancor, even within his administration. He really understood that he was a unifier, that it was his duty to stay on and help guide the country during another term. But he really very reluctantly did it. In fact, he had Madison draft, a Farewell address in 1792. He was going to retire. And like I said, he reluctantly stays in office. And it’s kind of interesting as he goes to retire in 1796, after the second term, he pulls out the Madison draft, and he now is very close to Alexander Hamilton as his main adviser. Hamilton rewrites Madison’s draft but Washington wanted Hamilton to keep some of Madison’s material in there as a subtle signal to the Jeffersonian Republicans, including Madison and Jefferson and others, that he was nonpartisan, that he was above, that he thought that they had an important contribution, even if they didn’t always get their way in the formulation of policy. But it was reaching out to sort of both sides and saying sort of I am, if you will, an inclusive president who wants to hear from all sides. That was very important. But it’s really him and Hamilton collaborating on that final document that we have. And it’s important to note that it was not a speech. It was printed in the newspapers, and it became a seminal document in the American mind. It was read starting in 1862 in the Senate and read annually every year in Washington’s birthday for that century. I really think it should rank as really one of the top three to five documents in our study of American history. And unfortunately, it’s been in many ways forgotten. Yeah. And so to that end, we’re going to kind of skip around a little bit, I think, just because of the length of this document. But I hope that we can point out a few places where you might want to investigate with your students because there’s some

33:26 really just rich passages here from this document. I think, as I was mentioning before, even in this opening, the world of 1796, I think, is very different in a way from 1789. I think a lot of that comes out of just the practical experience of governing a nation. With this government in place, there are decisions that had to be made. Whenever you make decisions, you tend to upset certain people and make other people happy. And from that sort of natural back and forth, that natural deliberation over policies, parties do begin to emerge, I think, to the disappointment probably, of Washington and others. But they do. And so 1796, we are in a much more partisan time. We’re in a more divided time. I think there are big issues up for consideration that are being wrestled with, and Washington is stepping away from all that. And I just wanted to know before we hop around and look at a few different constitutional and civic principles that are highlighted in the speech, just to say here that I find it fascinating that he says friends and fellow citizens, I think is a really interesting opening. Again, potentially rhetorical, if it’s just Washington’s rhetoric, but it seems meaningful to me that he does that. And then his first thing here is to speak to the people in Washington is often referred to as the father of the nation. Right? And this does read, though, like it’s a father consulting his children, in a way, to say, look, there’s an important decision coming up for you. I’m stepping away, and you’re going to clothe, he says, the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, I think is a really powerful line. And I’m sure that the father symbolism has been overplayed, but I think this may be a place where some of that comes out just because of the way this is written, the tone he takes. But I think it’s really interesting. Yes, no, I think so. And I think that very much frames the stuff very well, because Washington is giving advice to his countrymen, to his fellow citizens. You know, they don’t have to follow his advice. But he lays down really three or four key principles that really do shape a lot of the course of thinking of politicians, of statesmen throughout the 19th and 20th century. His prescriptions were in many ways not only sort of very important and sort of advanced for their time. He understood not only the problems of his day, but the problems that could affect the country for a long time. And so that’s why I think his advice is salient for so long. And I’m going to skip down to the first one of those that you had talked about, that we had talked about covering, which is one of the things he really goes

36:30 after, is making sure that there’s a unity to what’s going on. So thinking back again to what we saw in the inaugural of wanting to bind people together and point them towards the higher purpose that they’re serving, that this is a national cause in a democracy like we have, it’s not a zero sum game. You’re going to lose as much as you win when it comes to policy discussions and conversations. The important thing is that that conversation continues. And it seems here that Washington is again sensitive to that. And Tony, if there are other lines that you want me to jump to, just let me know. But starting here, this line of interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your heart, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. Starting off with this idea that, look, liberty is the aim to which we’re trying to preserve. And that’s why the system of government is here, is to ensure individual liberty continues to exist. And he says, the unity of government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. So he’s making that connection to say, we fought in my estimation, we fought a revolution to preserve this thing called liberty, and we are now have a union which is preserving that thing. And you now see the people, how it is that unity is working to preserve this and why that is important. Right. And look at how he speaks of union. Right. He calls it right up at the top there. The unity of government which constitutes one people is now dear to you. It is just so. It’s a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence. So he sort of enumerates several ways that it’s a pillar in the edifice of liberty. And he says edifice of your independence, of your domestic tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your political and economic prosperity, of that very liberty which he’s so highly prized. Right. So it really encompasses everything. Right. So for him, the unity of government, the union, but also our unity as Americans, even as we have differences and partisan views and so forth, that unity for him is so important. Everything depends on it, as you can see. And he advises several lines down, about eight lines down, he says he advised that you should cherish a cordial habitual and immovable attachment to it. Right. The palladium of your political safety and prosperity, and you should guard it, you should preserve it with jealous anxiety, resisting every attempt to destroy it. Right. And we look back now, we’re a nation who lived through a sectional civil war,

39:32 and we can see that it wasn’t always followed, but Washington really understood, especially as all these European empires are on North American soil and they’re contending on the high seas for dominance, that the Americans needed to be unified otherwise they could be destroyed. Yeah. In here too, I’m seeing connections to other documents that I’m sure we’ll explore at some point. But the one that really stands out for me is Daniel Webster’s Liberty and Union speech, which is his second reply to Haney during the Webster Haney debates. To me, this gets directly at what Webster is talking about and then even further, because Abraham Lincoln then cribs a little bit from that speech in talking about a government of the people, by the people and for the people. To me, and this probably speaks to what you meant about that this became a touchstone document because there is something packed in here that is greater than even what he’s talking about. We can certainly know that this liberty and the equality that it points towards weren’t perfectly achieved at this point, but it points towards something that the project is working toward realizing, and that jealous anxiety is wanting to continue to further and to achieve. And it’s interesting to kind of see that line through American history where this theme of union being greater than just a practical alliance of states, that it’s something greater than that. Which, again, is something Abraham Lincoln really draws out. Yes, I think so. Skipping down here in speaking directly to political parties, this is something we touched on earlier, but this danger of faction and that it gives it gives artificial and extraordinary force. I think here is Washington coming out as someone who’s been caught up in these parson rankings in the hurley burley of politics in the 1790s, which you noted was certainly a time of challenge and disagreement as the nation’s trying to find its way forward. And I think what he says here is really profound. Yeah. There was a question about what was his view of parties. And I think that he did equate them with faction. He equated them with self interest, very inimical, very destructive of the public good, of that unity among Americans. And I think he feels this way not only because he was starting to be personally attacked and because he saw the divisions within his own government. I think those weighed on him a great deal.

42:35 But I think his general very strong concern here about parties. And we’ll look at some of his adjectives in a minute to describe them. But he shares the view of parties held by nearly it was a nearly universal idea among politicians, among the Founders, among the Americans of the day, that parties were bad, that parties were destructive towards the public good, and our common purpose and interest, all of them heated parties, and yet they started within about three to four years or two, three, four years after the government was created, after the nation started. And so again, perhaps part of human nature, right? We have differing views. We may agree on the principles of the town, and we may agree on liberty and self government and so forth. But when you’re sitting down in a prudential way to formulate domestic policy, taxes, how you’re going to deal with domestic insurrections like the Whiskey rebellion, what kind of foreign policy you’re going to create, which countries you’re going to support in case of wars. I mean, these are all very practical political decisions, and there are areas in which people disagree, and that’s very natural. And we see it today, and we saw 200 years ago, and we’ll see it 200 years from now. There’s just not perfect unity and agreement on these things, and that’s okay. But for Washington was very troubled about the effect that it would have on the survivability of the Republic. Let’s see how he describes them. He calls them a small but artful and enterprising minority. Right? They’re deceitful. They’re shadowy. They’re interested in their own self interest. He calls them the ill, concerted projects of faction, the potent engines of cunning, ambition, and unprincipled men. They subvert the power of the people, usurp the reins of government or unjust dominion, and they promote what he calls the baneful effects of party, and they include the spirit of revenge. It’s just a highly charged and very negative assessment of the effects political parties have. I don’t know if people would feel that way today. Maybe they still would. Maybe people feel that way about political parties today, or at least the other person’s party. He and many of the other Founders had a highly negative assessment of political parties and their effect on a republic. Yeah. And I think that distinction, too, between party and faction is interesting,

45:37 and one that can be interesting to go into with students. And we don’t have time to really pick it apart today. I wish we did, but just the idea that I think the Founders anticipated. Madison writes about the Federalist Papers that faction would arise. I think the problem with parties was that it gave you something else you were dedicated to, that you owed loyalty to, that was outside of serving your constituents and serving the nation. And again, the fact that parties sort of inevitably sprung up almost immediately maybe points toward the Founders being a little bit naive and just how it is that human beings would practically organize themselves in a republic in order to just function politically. I think that’s kind of why parties come about. Of course, parties, the nature of parties, changes over the course of American history. But that idea, too, that they were anticipating factions of people grouping together, but they just thought that those groupings wouldn’t be permanent, I think was probably the way that they thought about it. Right. And it comes a lot out of the Whig ideology, the Republican ideology of the American Revolution, in which the unity, the public good, sacrificing for the public good, patriotism, all these sort of classical ideals were very much at the heart of what they were fighting for against Great Britain. And so many, like Washington and others, want these ideals to go forward. And I think they understand human nature. Madison clearly does in Federalist 10. But they still didn’t like them. Right? I mean, they knew they were part of nature, but that didn’t mean they had to like them or had to think that they were good for public affairs. Right. And sort of speaking of that idealism and maybe idealism in a positive sense, maybe holding ourselves to a higher ideal, we wanted to touch on this section really quickly, starting on line 286 here and thinking about here how the indispensable supports of religion and morality Washington points to. But the idea that there is a certain duty required of men and citizens, that there is something that we need to there are things that are incumbent upon ourselves that we need to be mindful of because of the responsibility now of self government. I’ve always thought that this passage is just really beautifully written and I think gets at the heart of what Washington saw as citizenship. I agree with that. And I think that he says, look, of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports, right? And he writes this don’t forget that Washington as President sent letters to many different religious denominations

48:44 and really advocate was a very strong advocate, which I don’t think he received enough credit for promoting religious liberty as a natural right, for promoting freedom of conscience. Right. He writes to Jews, he writes to Roman Catholics, he writes to Baptists and Presbyterians, many, many different denominations and religions. And Washington really respects that. But he says here, like many other founders, actually, that most people get their morality from a higher source, right, from religion. And he even concedes that possibly from philosophy and reason. But he says most people back at the time, church going and primarily Protestants, most people got their sense of morality from religion, from natural law, and that this made them better people, that this made them more moral, this made them more virtuous and therefore that was the basis of good citizenship. So we sort of had this founding syllogism, this logical statement, this logical progression of religion is necessary for morality, for virtue, for goodness. And those things are the basis of self government, of republican self government. Because don’t forget, the people needed to in a republic, needed to govern themselves, they needed to exercise self control, they needed to be moral beings, they needed to be good citizens, basically. And so that’s all this is really saying. But it is a very important principle, I think. Yeah, I think it’s concluding short paragraph here is a really powerful one. Promote then, as an object of primary importance institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that that public opinion should be enlightened. I think it’s pointing to things I’m sure we all talk about with our own students. Be aware of what’s going on, pay attention to what the government is doing. Goes back to that jealous guarding of our liberty. Right. That is how it is accomplished. It’s on each of us to be paying attention to what politicians in our own towns and our states and the national government are all doing and how it is that intersects with our own lives. Exactly. One final thing we wanted to touch on here, which I think is something that people often state with this is in regard to Washington’s view on foreign policy. I think for most people, if there’s anything that you can pull from the farewell address, I think it’s this entangling alliances of language. And so I just asked, as we’re getting to our final few minutes

51:47 here, Tony, did Washington expect us to be isolationist forever or did he have some sense that world affairs may wash up on our shores at some point? Yeah, entangling alliances is actually Jefferson. He tells us to avoid, steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the world. And I think one of the reasons why to answer your question, though, is no. And I don’t think he understood this to be isolationist really at all. I think that he understood that Americans needed to interact with the world that was right and proper as a nation, that they should win respect of the world, that they would defend their national interests and so have national security capability in terms of the military and so forth, and that they’d also conduct commercial relations with the world. I think that his principles in terms of how we’re going to relate to the rest of the world are very important. And this is just a small list of all the things he talked about over several paragraphs. He said Americans should treat the rest of the world with honesty, with amity or friendship with liberality in terms of their policies, with justice, humanity, and that they are going to have commercial relations with them. And so it’s a principled foreign policy, but it’s one that also defends American national interest. And I think what he’s really saying about the alliances is that you see this during the wars of the French Revolution and then Napoleonic Wars, and then America goes to war against Great Britain in 1812 and then later on becomes friends. But your friend today might not be your friend tomorrow, or it might be in your interest to be enemies with the country, your friends with a country or allies, but that may all change. And so Washington is saying, look, you’re clear of permanent alliances, just jealously guard your own interest, but treat all countries in your constant interactions with them, with all these principles. So I think it’s a really healthy and balanced approach to the conduct of diplomacy and foreign policy, at least on paper. I think the principles are right, and I think Washington does get his foreign policies, his actual foreign policy is correct. But it’s hard in a changing world, in a world at war, even in the 1790s, to apply these principles evenly, especially to satisfy everyone, because a lot of those foreign policies caused divisions at home as well, just as they do today.

54:47 Yeah absolutely. So, as we’re coming to the end here, Tony, is there anything else that you think we ought to touch on? I scrolled down to the very end because I always like concluding sentences and paragraphs, but I’ve appreciated doing our quick marks through both of these documents. I hope everybody watching was able to take something from it. I wish we had more time to really go through it line by line, but hopefully we pulled out a few snippets that might be interesting to go through with your classes. But, Tony, any parting words? Well, someone did ask about do we know whether these are which ones are Hamilton and which one are Madison’s words? And I do want to address that. Yeah, we do. There’s been some studies of the Farewell Address, one by a historian named Matthew Spalding. I think it’s called Sacred Union of Citizens, and I recommend that. And he does have some appendices, I think, where he goes through and shows you who is responsible for which parts of it. But in general, I would be happy to conclude with our teachers and students here saying that these are very not only important documents to read and go through and to learn, but also very relevant documents to discuss, because they have some of those unchanging, immutable principles that address these perennial questions that keep coming up, not only in American history, but right up through our current events today. And so I really commend going through these documents to our teachers and to all of our fellowship, to borrow a phrase from Washington, right? Absolutely. Well, thank you all so much for joining us today. We really appreciate it going through this with you. And we hope to see you again soon. So thank you so much. Thanks for watching everyone.