George Washington’s Timely Advice
By Nancy Spannaus
Sept. 18, 2024—At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, according to the journal of Maryland delegate James McHenry, prominent Philadelphia socialite Elizabeth Willing Powel asked Benjamin Franklin whether the convention had created a monarchy or a republic. “A republic, if you can keep it,” Dr. Franklin replied. Thus was posed, 237 years ago today, the question which every generation of Americans has faced, most emphatically including us in 2024.
But how can our republic be preserved? Some of the most relevant advice, I believe, came from the young Abraham Lincoln in his speech to young Illinoisans in 1838. (See my post here.) But we can also turn to the words of George Washington in his announcement of retirement in 1796.
The announcement, addressed to “the people of the United States,” and subsequently known as his Farewell Address, was published in the American Daily Advertizer (a Philadelphia newspaper) on September 19, 1796.
I cannot emphasize too much the value of reading this letter today, and re-reading it at least yearly. Written in close collaboration with Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s letter expresses at some length the principles which he believed were vital to the survival of the American republic, the cause for which he had served in public life for 45 years. I would argue that none of his concerns are outdated (although I’m sure many would disagree), despite the differences in circumstances today.
The Importance of National Union
Washington’s leading concern was that his fellow citizens maintain and protect their attachment to the national union, the union which won independence and liberty for all its inhabitants, and which he argued was essential to economic progress for all. He summarized the mutual benefits which the economic strengths of various sections of the nation represent for the whole, and pressed his readers to adhere to the “indissoluble community of interest, as one nation.”
A large part of the remainder of the document is dedicated to identifying, and countering, the threats to this union. These threats include sectionalism, the “spirit of party,” and the effects of foreign influence, especially through the passionate attachment or habitual enmity toward particular nations.
These admonitions from Washington were not new. As elaborated by Jeffrey Rosen in his recent book The Pursuit of Happiness,[1] Washington waged a life-long battle against the danger of passion overtaking reason and civility, both in his personal character and in public affairs. Like many of the Founding Fathers, he constantly turned to the writings of philosophers such as the Romans Cicero and Seneca, who insisted that control of one’s passions in the interest of the common good was the pathway to both personal and public happiness.
On the domestic front, the Farewell Address warns against parties based on sectional interests and factions. “All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency.
“They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force—to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.” (emphasis added)
(Just think about how appalled Washington would be about the political partisanship that dominates our country today! Making a team sport of elections and elevating party above nation have replaced patriotic concern for the welfare of all sectors of our society to an extreme degree.)
As to foreign policy, Washington had this to say: “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all,” he counsels. Seek commercial relations, but not political ones: no “permanent alliances.” His warning against “entangling alliances” (that term was used by Thomas Jefferson, rather than Washington’s “permanent alliances”) should be understood in the context of Washington’s overall policy statement. He was admonishing the nation to avoid a foreign policy based on sentiments of hatred or love of another nation; Washington’s major concern was to ensure peaceful relations based on commerce in the interest of all.
(Could there be a bigger contrast to today?)
The Citizen’s Responsibility
What should become clear in reading this document is the degree to which Washington, writing as a citizen, is putting responsibility on his fellow-citizens to maintain the republic. You bled and died to create this country, he says, in effect; you deliberated on and established a Constitution; now you must act to defend that Constitution, follow the laws of the land, and do what is necessary to preserve the Union into the future by governing your own passions in the interest of the nation.
I find the following section particularly poignant, and thought-provoking:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.
A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of a religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. This rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
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 should be enlightened.[2] (emphasis added)
The Necessity of Education
It was Washington’s original inclination to elaborate on this admonition to promote education in this open letter, but Hamilton convinced him not to extend the length of the document, but to include his thoughts in his final address to Congress, which would be given in early December. There Washington called for the establishment of a National University, as well as a Military Academy. The National University in the nation’s capital should bring in students from around the country to create a common bond and increase the prospects for “permanent Union,” he said. And, he continued,
…a primary object of such a National Institution should be, the education of our Youth in the science of government. In a Republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty, more pressing on its Legislature, than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those, who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the Country?
Washington put his money where his mouth was. In his last will and testament, he bequeathed his shares in the Potomac Company toward the endowment of a university in the District of Columbia. George Washington University (initially called Columbian College), chartered in 1821, was Congress’s belated response to his call.
Food for Thought
There is no question but that Washington’s (and Hamilton’s) admonitions in his September 19 Farewell Address were taken quite seriously by the leading representatives of the American System of political economy, most notably John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln. Above all, their concern was for preserving the Union. But they also put great stress on the moral dimension of this question, which they understood to rely on the “general diffusion of knowledge.”
It is my hope that this blog, in its own way, can further the attainment of that essential goal.
[1] I will be reviewing this book in the near future.
[2] It should be stressed that Washington is not talking about making religion a part of government, but putting the onus for maintaining moral standards he considered part of natural law on the citizens themselves.
Tags: Constitution, education, faction, George Washington, morality, Nancy Spannaus, national union, party, republic