George Washington's Farewell Address

Washington’s silence on American slavery is noteworthy, especially because he uses the term “slave” to describe a nation that is too closely intertwined with another, whether by friendship or animosity. Though he himself enslaved others, Washington apparently became more critical of it later in life—yet he never condemned slavery publicly. Is there any way Washington could have dealt with the issue of slavery without sabotaging his own case for national unity? If so, explain how. If not, explain why not.

Washington appeals to both sentiment and interest to convince Americans to value their national identity above state or local identities. Which do you think is more effective—to be loyal to your country out of instinct, as one might feel for a family member or close friend, or out of a calculation that loyalty is likely to pay off?

Washington tends to describe opposition to the federal government as a malevolent conspiracy actively seeking to destroy the country. Does this harsh rendition of his political opponents undermine his appeal to national unity? If so, how could he acknowledge differences of opinion while still appealing to a common American interest and character? If not, how does the constitutional right to free speech differ from subversion?

Washington insists that the laws demand complete obedience. By contrast, Martin Luther King Jr. writes in his “Letter From a Birmingham City Jail” that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” African Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania, 1963). Which of these two positions do you find to be more persuasive, and why?

The two-party system would become a fact of life soon after Washington’s presidency, and US politics are now highly partisan. Does Washington offer any insight as to how to improve the current political climate? Otherwise, do the address’s partisan undertones prove that “the spirit of party” is baked into the system (Paragraph 19)?

Washington firmly supported the separation of church and state, yet his letter asserts that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle” (Paragraph 26). What does this seeming discrepancy reveal about Washington’s concept of civic virtue? What about his concept of liberty? Where else does the “Farewell Address” communicate those conceptions?

As of the early 21st century, the United States’ national debt is in the tens of trillions of dollars. However, as the federalists originally conceived of a national bank, the government had practically no role in social welfare; now, it runs expensive programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, which are critical for aiding the nation’s vulnerable or disadvantaged populations. Should the US follow Washington’s advice regarding “public credit” and restrict it to emergencies, or does the government now have a greater responsibility to its people, even if that requires piling up debt?

The United States is now deeply involved in the affairs of other nations worldwide. Does this represent a violation of Washington’s advice not to give up the unique advantages of American geography to become involved in foreign quarrels? Or does it fulfill his prediction that once strong enough, the US would be free to act however it chose?