“I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire.”

Washington’s phrasing suggests that while forces beyond his control have required him to stay in office, those matters have sufficiently calmed to permit his retirement. Washington also subtly congratulates himself and his administration for solving the problems that beset them in the second term. For all of the humility put forth in the address, Washington finds ways to bolster his accomplishments.

“I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution which is the work of your hands may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.”

This long sentence is a peroration, the high point of emotion and inspiration in a speech, which usually comes at the conclusion. Washington hints at a very brief statement to announce his retirement and express gratitude, urging the American people not only to live happily under a free and effective government but also, in doing so, to inspire those around the world who lack but nevertheless seek freedom. The address could end here, but Washington also wants to offer advice and defend the record of his administration.

“The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it 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.”

This is the letter’s most concise statement regarding The Importance of National Unity. Washington warns that if Americans are divided against themselves, their rights as a free people will be compromised, as the people will be too insecure to enjoy those rights. The warning’s bottom line is that Americans should not just pursue unity but love it as the guarantor of their liberty.

“Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.”

Because their lives were largely bound up in the particularities of their region, many Americans at the time thought of themselves principally as Southerners, New Yorkers, or New Englanders. Washington tells them that because they are either born American or become so through immigration, the nation should be their primary source of identity and loyalty. The national region that they happen to inhabit is merely accidental and should have no bearing on their political views.

“While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and imbitter.”

This line of argument is very similar to Hamilton’s in The Federalist Papers (especially 6, 7, and 8), essays he cowrote with Jay and Madison to advocate the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. This passage argues that if the nation’s various regions learn to cooperate, their shared resources will generate wealth and power far beyond what any of them could achieve on their own. The regions will also be more secure from threats, as a foreign challenger will recognize the hopelessness of attacking a united people.

“Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.”

Many critics of the Constitution argued that only a monarchy or empire could govern such a large territory, and so liberty would require that power be spread among the state governments. Washington responds by framing the new federal government as an experiment, in line with the contemporary Enlightenment attitude that politics were almost a natural science. In this vein, he suggests that if anyone arrives at a conclusion before the experiment has run its course, they are probably concealing ulterior motives.

“[The people] have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties that with Great Britain and that with Spain—which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations toward confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured?”

To prove how the federal government can provide for the interest of each region, Washington cites the Pinckney Treaty (1795) with Spain, and the Jay Treaty (1794) with Britain. The Pinckney Treaty was widely considered a success since it secured US access to the Mississippi River, which had been a major demand for those seeking to settle the Western frontier. The Jay Treaty was far more controversial, as it secured commercial ties with Britain that many found unfavorable, even humiliating. By speaking of both treaties in the same sentence, Washington tries to enfold one of his administration’s least popular policies within one of the more popular ones.

“This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty.”

The phrase “offspring of our own choice” is rhetorical fortification. “Offspring” invokes nature, while “our own choice” invokes liberty—both sovereign concepts in the American founding. The passage suggests that since the Constitution was ratified by each of the individual states after a long and comprehensive convention, Americans should view it as their own creation and therefore worthy of their care and attention. If the people ever find the Constitution to be somehow deficient, then they can amend it, but until they do so, the Constitution as written demands total obedience. An unpopular law is still law as long as it remains on the books.

“Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.”

Even though the Constitution bears amendment, any such efforts must stay true to its core principles. Similarly, while it may be acceptable to criticize the government, anything that challenges governmental authority is unacceptable. The distinction Washington draws is reasonable, but in practice, those in power may characterize any dissent as unconstitutional or seditious.

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.”

Washington fears that if the government were to break into factions, the laws could become incoherent, as each new administration would focus on repudiating the work of their predecessor. Even worse, they would try to bend the machinery of government to their own advantage. This divisiveness could corrode republican institutions to the point of despotism, where one self-interested faction rules entirely. While despotism per se is undesirable, the American founders considered it especially reprehensible because it is anti-republican. That is, despotism is antithetical to self-government, and the prevailing Enlightenment attitude was that self-government is most appropriate to human dignity.

“The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.”

This is a clear expression of classical republican theory, which posits three kinds of power: the legislature, which writes the laws; the executive, which enforces the laws; and the judiciary, which interprets the laws, applying them to resolve disputes. Each of these powers should operate freely in its own sphere, but each should also have some measure of influence over the others to prevent any one power from dominating. For example, the president can veto laws (and Congress can override the veto), Congress can impeach the president, the Senate approves presidential nominations to federal courts, and the courts can nullify federal law or presidential actions if those actions are unconstitutional.

“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.”

Washington’s own religious beliefs are a matter of scholarly debate, but he believes that religious devotion is compatible with civic responsibility. Christianity is foremost in his mind, but many religions promulgate their own laws. The divine law and civil law may differ, but Washington assumes that those who fear judgment in the afterlife will be more inclined to follow earthly laws.

“If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”

Though Washington warns against involvement in Europe, he does not necessarily think the US should forever stay out of world affairs. Rather, he believes the country should avoid unnecessary risks while it is only beginning to tap its vast potential. As the nation grows stronger over time, its interests may still demand peace, or they may require war, but it must wait until it is powerful enough that it is free to choose without other nations imposing that choice upon it.