Talk:George Washington's Farewell Address

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Word confusion?[edit]

Is the address, as the last paragraph states, actually notorious, as in famous through misdeeds? -- VGF11 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point--the right word is "fame" and I fixed it. Rjensen 04:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Major Theme - Religion and Morality necessary Political Prosperity[edit]

Clearly, in his Farewell Address, Washington expounds on his belief that religion and morality are important to the young country. He argues "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." What is POV about quoting this from Washington's speech, Rjensen? Again, is the primary source the problem for you, again? George Washington said it, not me. If you don't like it, take that up with him. Rjensen, I believe Washington was speaking to you and those with your similar persuasions when he said regarding religion and morality, "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." Again, Rjensen, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle" so don't ever forget it. No matter how much you labor to abolish religion from United States History, you will never get rid of it. So quit trying to rewrite history according to your POV.

Rjensen simply deleted the third major theme, as it is currently referred to in the Farewell Address article, and neglected to edit the article to reflect his intent to show that the Address only had TWO (2) major themes. Blatantly POV as demonstrated through outright neglect of the article. Didn't even bother to try to keep the article up to some kind of standards. (Gaytan 23:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Gaytan, I understand why you were peeved. Deleting that whole section, with no Talk page discussion, and just the inflamatory edit summary, '"del one editor's POV," seems like blanking to me. However, a gentler tone would have improved your response.
Anyhow, I see that you reverted him, and the section is still back in place, albeit with a strange caption, and an odd opening (non-)sentence.
Would anyone object if I deleted that opening non-sentence ("Tranquility abroad and neutrality at home") and fixed the title? NCdave 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no objection, I've made these changes. NCdave 12:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a fourth warning in the address. That of not allowing any one constitutional sphere to have more power than the other two. Nineteenth paragraph. Edit: Miscounted; eighteenth paragraph. ReEdit: I must have found a copy of the first farewell speech, the one set aside after his first term. Paragraph 26 covers constitutional spheres. BingoDingo (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the outline (which I've restored to the article) I called this topic (in paragraph 26) "Checks and balances, strict construction of the Constitution." Does that seem like a good description to you, BingoDingo? NCdave (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another important theme[edit]

From what I understand, one of the other important aspects of his speech was to warn against "an overgrown military establishment ... inauspicious to liberty". This seems to refer to standing armies, and seems to parallel Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" farewell address. Both speeches were prophetic, and both in vain.

I think that should be addressed in the article. --OC (this comment was added by 69.125.3.77 on 3 June 2007)

The quote to which you refer is there, to be sure, but it was not a theme. It was just a supporting argument, in the 2nd sentence of paragraph 13, bolstering his theme of the importance of American unity.
You may deem the sentence highly important, but Washington gave it just one sentence. It might have been a strongly-held belief of President Washington, but it was not an "important theme" of his Farewell Address. His main themes each got multiple paragraphs.
Washington devoted many paragraphs to the to the theme of the advantages of American unity, and paragraph 13 was just one of them. The argument he made in paragraph 13 was, in a nutshell, that: Central governance of the States reduced the risk of armed conflicts, both between the States and with foreign governments, and thereby reduced the "necessity" of "overgrown military establishments" which are "inauspicious to liberty." Thus (he concluded) if you love liberty you ought also to support the preservation of the Union between the States. NCdave 06:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

full text[edit]

Does anyone have the full text of the farewell address? This should probably be transcribed into the article or made into it's own article and linked if it's too long. -Mike Payne 14:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikisource. MavrikGandalf 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. NCdave 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that there was already a Wikisource link to the full text, tucked away near the lower-right corner of the article. But it is very easy to miss. So I've added a link to "wikisource:Washington's Farewell Address" in the first sentence. NCdave 06:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. What's the point having an article on the address without the actual address. It can be found here [Washington's Farewell Address 1776] BingoDingo (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have lots of links to the full text, now. The outline (which I restored today) links directly to various paragraphs in the Wikisource, and about 6 weeks ago Vgy7ujm added a link to Bartleby's copy of the Address. However, a link to the earlier draft which President Washington prepared but did not use at the end of his first term would be an interesting addition to the article. Does anyone know where to find it? NCdave (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! Here is the 1792 draft:
http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/library/features/gw/farewell.htm NCdave (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the source links to the text, the "modern" (as of 2017) way of linking to wikisource is via infoboxes of various kinds. I added an infobox at top (which has a standard place for highlighting a wikisource link) and under references I put the standard

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

tag which inserts a little box there. KevinCuddeback (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

military alliances[edit]

The article says, "Not until i have a kiss with the signing of the treaty that established NATO, did the United States again enter into a military alliance."

Is that a joke? No it is true that some people watch porn. Do WWI and WWII not count? NCdave 05:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what happened now. The original sentence (lifted from a State Department article) was:
Not until 1949, in fact, would the United States again sign a treaty of alliance with a foreign nation.
When TheGrza rewrote the paragraph, he changed it to use the "enter into" wording. Unfortunately, that also changed the sentence from being technically true but arguably misleading, to just plain untrue.
I propose that we just delete the sentence.
Alternately, we could explain that, while the USA did subsequently enter into wartime alliances, she did not enter into any formal treaties of military alliance until the 1949 treaty which established NATO.
Anyhow, the existing sentence is obviously inaccurate. Does anyone have a preference for which way the problem should be solved? NCdave 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the title of this Talk page section is wrong. Washington did not warn against just military alliances, he warned against additional permanent foreign alliances, both military and economic. See paragraph 36: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." That paragraph is not about "military" alliances. Nor did he warn against all military alliances. It was only new permanent alliances that he feared. E.g., in paragraph 41 he wrote, "Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." NCdave 05:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no comment from anyone else, I've changed the sentence to read, "Not until 1949, with the signing of the treaty that established NATO, did the United States again enter into a permanent foreign treaty of military alliance." It is ponderous, but at least it is truthful. I didn't want to leave an obviously false claim in the article. But I'm still inclined to think we should just delete the sentence altogether. Does anyone else have an opinion? NCdave 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman changed it back, without comment, as part of his 27 Sept. revert, which undid about 10 revisions. I think that might have been accidental (perhaps he accidentally reverted the article to my 20 Sept. version while intending to revert it to 25 Sept. version). So I've restored this correction (except that I dropped the word "foreign"). NCdave (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tranquility abroad and neutrality at home."[edit]

That must be a typo! It doesn't even make sense. I think it was intended to read, "tranquility at home and neutrality abroad." However, it is ungrammatical (a sentence fragment written as a sentence), and it is placed at the beginning of a paragraph which has little to do with the topic of domestic tranquility and nothing at all to do with the topic of neutrality abroad. Shall we just delete it? NCdave 05:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objection, I've deleted it (and made a few other wording changes). NCdave 12:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outline[edit]

Should the article have an outline of the Address? I envision something like this:

paragraph  theme
1-7Impending retirement from public life
8-18Importance of unity, danger of factions, authority of the Constitution
19Strict construction of the Constitution
20-25Danger of parties
26Checks and balances, strict construction of the Constitution
27-28Importance of religion and morality
29Education
30Sparing use of government borrowing
31-42Foreign relations, aversion to alliances
43-44Closing thoughts
45-49American neutrality in European war
50-51Closing thoughts

What do y'all think? NCdave 07:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make those paragraph numbers into links to <a name=label> HTML labels in the Wikisource article? I can't figure out how to add the labels to the Wikisource article. NCdave 09:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've added {{section|ParagraphNumber}} labels to teach paragraph in the WikiSource document, per the helpful advice of user Pathoschild. This creates <span id=ParagraphNumber></span> HTML labels, which work like <a name=ParagraphNumber> labels. Here is the proposed outline with the paragraph numbers turned into links, and a few minor wording changes:

paragraph  theme
1-7Impending retirement from public life
8-18Importance of unity, danger of factions, authority of the Constitution
19Strict construction of the Constitution
20-25Danger of political parties
26Checks and balances, strict construction of the Constitution
27-28Religion and morality
29Education
30Sparing use of government borrowing
31-42Foreign relations, avoiding permanent foreign alliances
43-44Closing thoughts
45-49American neutrality in European war
50-51More closing thoughts

Comments/suggestions/complaints, please? Does anyone object to my inserting this version into the article? NCdave 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC), 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there are, as commonly told, 3 major themes, the identity of the 3rd seems to be in dispute. If "religion & morality" is the 3rd theme, then paragraphs 29 & 30 are separate minor themes. If Political prosperity is the 3rd theme, then paragraphs 27 to 30 are easily included as part of that theme, and paragraphs 29 & 30 (and even 31) are developments of that theme --JimWae 18:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "political prosperity" is used in paragraph 27 just as "strength and security" is used in paragraph 30: they are mentioned only once, at the very beginning, as the hoped for benefits of the policies being advocated (promotion of religion & morality in paragraph 27, and the sparing use of borrowing in paragraph 30). The rest of these paragraphs are about the policies being advocated. Just as you would not say that the theme of paragraph 30 is "strength & security," so you should not say that the theme of paragraphs 27 & 28 is "political prosperity."
I agree that paragraph 29 (Education) is a minor theme. It is a very short paragraph, but it covers a distinct topic. Admittedly, given the very close relationship between church and scholarship in those days (there was really no such thing as secular education), paragraph 29 is closely related to the two preceding paragraphs (about religion and morality). But it is clearly talking about something different.
Likewise, paragraph 30 (about gov't credit & borrowing) is related to the religion & morality theme, as well, it being about an aspect of public virtue. But it, too, has a very specific topic, which is not mentioned elsewhere. So I would also call it a minor theme.
Paragraph 31 is also about public virtue, this time as applied to foreign affairs. Among the arguments for it are that Religion and Morality so teach, and that "Providence [connects] the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue." So it, too, is obviously connected to the broader theme of Religion and Morality. But I think it is different from paragraphs 27 & 28 in an important way. Paragraphs 27 & 28 are about the importance of Religion and Morality, but paragraph 31 is about the application of religion and morality (to foreign affairs). The point of paragraph 31 is that the USA should be righteous in its conduct of foreign affairs. NCdave 14:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added the outline. NCdave 23:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wetman, why did you delete the outline, and my correction to the "legacy" section? Your edit summary mentioned only deleting the full text which Nicky2you had added. But instead of reverting his one revision (back to my 25 Sept. version), you reverted clear back to my 20 Sept. version. My guess is that it was accidental. Is that right? NCdave (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and restored the outline, and the legacy section fix. NCdave (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My error. The outline, I suppose, is a temporary thing, and that paragraphs taking up each of the thematic points are coming. --Wetman (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. Since I finally figured out how to make the paragraph numbers in the outline link directly to the corresponding paragraphs in the Wikisource, I figured that was sufficient. Why write paragraphs paraphrasing Washington, if you can just let him speak for himself? Of course, if you'd like to contribute some content, feel free! NCdave (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republican[edit]

The Republican party is not used corectly in the Foriegn Alliances Section because firstly the Federalist Party would become the Republican party (federalists to whigs to republicans, the first being Lincoln) and second the republican party was not a party at the time. The most correct term would be Jeffersonian-Republican, which eventually would become the current democratic party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.182.27.230 (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, admittedly, confusing, but they actually called themselves "Republicans" at the time. The term "Democratic-Republican" came much later, as did the (less common) use of names like "Jeffersonian" and "Jeffersonian-Republican." There's a lengthy discussion of this in the Wikipedia article on the Democratic-Republican Party, here.
We probably should correct the "political factions" section to use the term "Republican," like the "foreign alliances" section does, but the first use of the term needs a parenthetical clarification, perhaps like this: "Republicans (later called Democratic-Republicans)." The hotlink, of course, should point to the article on the Democratic-Republican Party. NCdave (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who helped write it, Hamilton or Madison?[edit]

In [this revision] 68.231.59.250 changed the article from saying that Madison assisted with Washington's first (unused) Farewell Address, to say that Hamilton did so. However, that seems to be an error. According to [this article], Madison assisted with the first one (the one Washington had prepared for use after his first term), and Hamilton & Jay assisted with the second one (the one Washington actually delivered, after his 2nd term):

Washington's Farewell Address was similar to one he had prepared at the end of his first term, when he had considered retiring from office. Toward the close of his first term in 1792 James Madison prepared notes to be used by Washington in formulating a valedictory speech. Madison submitted a draft but it was set aside when Washington abandoned his plans for retirement.
In May 1796 he took Madison's notes and wrote a first draft for the new address. Washington showed his manuscript to Alexander Hamilton and asked him to revise it. For the next four months various drafts were sent back and forth between Washington and Hamilton. Finally, Hamilton read his version of the address to John Jay for criticism, discussing the work paragraph by paragraph. The result, rewritten again by Washington in a final version, and admittedly a collaborative effort, nonetheless embodies the thoughts, ideas and principles of the retiring president.

So I'm going to change it back. NCdave (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Moran painting[edit]

My mother owns a 100+ year old print of the Edward Percy Moran painting of George Washington practicing his farewell address in a house with three other people, titled "Washington's Farewell Address". I've uploaded a photo of the print here, http://www.flickr.com/photos/27748767@N08/2868694581/ The outside of the frame dimensions are 21 1/2" X 18 1/2". Feel free to use it in this article and in an article on Edward Percy Moran. I've searched many times but can't find anything online about this painting or prints of it, I just get hits for "Washington's Farewell Address to his Troops", a different painting by Moran.

Will someone correct the title of this image as it's used on Wikipedia? The title is "Washington's Farewell Address" NOT "George Washington's Farewell Address". It's also posted without attribution of the source of the photograph. It's hanging on my parents' living room wall and I took the photo of the print. Bizzybody (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource[edit]

Given that Wikisource has the full speech, shouldn't there be a {{Wikisource}} template tag? I tried adding it myself but it didn't appear when I did "show preview", and I didn't want to just save the page for fear I didn't do it right.

For that matter, I think majority of the article having external-links to the aforementioned wikisource article doesn't really "sit right" with me. I get that the entire speech shouldn't be quoted here, but surely having excerpts from each section would be okay. We don't do the "in section I (linking to that section in Wikisource) A was discussed; in section II, B was discussed …" in any other Wikipedia articles about notable speeches, now do we? Just wanted to put that out there. MicahBrwn (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to the summary of Washington's Speech table[edit]

I am writing in regards to the table which lays out the basic summary of Washington's speech line by line. I am afraid their may be some confusion about some of the comments he made in this speech. I am hoping it is due solely to confusion about some of the higher level vocabulary he used and not due to a political bias and have held off on flagging the article as possible bias.

For example in regards to Section 26 it was listed as "Checks and balances, strict construction of the constituion"

I have changed this to the following "Checks and balances, advocating peaceful changes to the the constitution if necessary"

The quote from the speech,

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

I believe he is saying that if the people feel the constitution and the powers granted within it are wrong it is o.k. to change the constitution but it should be changed through an amendment not through "usurption" or a violent takeover of power. I do not see a promotion of strict constructionalist beliefs, besides that of the amendment process, but instead a request that the people follow the amend the constitution peacefully when necessary instead of trying to overthrow the government, as the United States and Washington had done themselves, which is why I believe he state "in one instance, may be the instrument of good" but also the United States and Washington had watch the French revolution fall into chaos and bloodshed which is why I believe he states, "it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

I am of course open to and discussion on this topic and will continue my own study of the address and comment on future changes. --Epignosis (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Section 19 description on the summary table
I believe that "Advises the American people to beware of constitutional amendments which will weaken or overly restrict the power of the new government." is a more appropriate description of the content of this paragraph than "Strict construction of the Constitution."
I believe that Washington is trying to warn the the American people that they should beware of amendments which seek "to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown." He goes on to say that the new government should be given an opportunity to operate and realize its full potential reminding the people to "remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments." He does warn the people to avoid amendments which are made from "the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion," which would suggest strict constructionalism but it is clear his main concern is not that the people never adapt and modify the constitution but that when they do so they make sure to not weaken the government to the point where it "is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property," or overly restrict the government since he believes that only a "government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty" can preserve the founding principles of the constitution and the United States of America.
As always I am open to debate on this subject.--Epignosis (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If no one is against the idea it I would like to expand upon this article by creating paragraphs which cover each section referenced in the table and attempt explanations of his words based upon direct quotes. Obviously this reeks of potential bias which is why I hope that you will all review my work but this method is also the accepted scholarly method in the field of history so I do not feel that doing so will undermine the neutrality of the article. The main reason I am doing this is because I am a bit concerned that by oversimplifying his speech as much as the table naturally does the article may cause confusion with the readers and pass on a message which Washington never meant to convey.
--Epignosis (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for paragraph summarizing sections 1-7 titled "Impending retirement from public life" on the "Outline" table[edit]

I plan on creating a new paragraph under the translation heading that sits blank for now along with beginning each with a title which states the section of the speech I am referencing and provides a brief description of the content. To start off with this title will be changed to "1-7 (hyperlinked) Opening Comments" It is my hope that this will eventually replace the table and assure you that all of these summaries will included references to the text and also be combined into a single paragraph summary of the speech but I have submitted them here section by section for review and discussion.

1 Washington advises the American people that he will not seek reelection in the upcoming Presidential election of 1796.

2 Washington tells the American people that he feels that his resignation from the presidency is in the best interest of the country and is doing so with the utmost gratitude to those who elected him.

3 Washington tells the American people that he only accepted the presidency out of a sense of duty to his country and that he had wanted to return to retirement in the last election but was convinced by people close to him and the state of foreign affairs at the time that it was his duty to serve a second term in office.

4 Washington tells the American people that he thinks they are ready for him to leave office and retire.

5 Washington tells the American people that he explained to them why he took office in the first place in his first inaugural address and that he has done his best to help form and run the new government despite the fact that he thinks he was never really qualified to do so. He goes on to reassure the American people that if ever his "limited abilities" in the office of the presidency was necessary that he is sure that they are no longer necessary.

6 Washington tells the American people that he is grateful for the positions he has held and the honors the country has given him but also that if he has done any good for the country during his presidency it was the result of the peoples continued and unwavering support for him in the face bad situations and of foreign criticism. He goes on to wish the American people all the blessings of heaven, or best of luck, that the union of the United States remains in place and strong, that the U.S. constitution, which they helped create perseveres, that every part of the government may be wise and morally pure, that they may always enjoy their freedoms, and that the example of the United States will help spread freedom to nations who are not.

7 Washington tells the American people that he is going to offer them some warnings and advise, as he did upon his inaugural address that are by no means law but instead should be considered the parting advice of a friend who is looking out for your best interest.

Within this summary paragraph I will also make reference to Washington's inaugural address which I believe is what he is referencing when he says that he has made the American people aware of why he took office, the current status of foreign affairs at the time of this address which he states is one of the reasons he served a second term, and also the political divisions between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans which led Jefferson and Adams to request he serve a second term as president.

I am open to and hope for discussion or dissent upon this intended revision. --Epignosis (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for paragraph summarizing sections 8-18 titled "Importance of unity, danger of factions, authority of the Constitution" on the "Outline" table[edit]

8. Washington says that he believes every American has come to hold their liberty dear and that there is no need for him to reinforce its virtues.

9. Washington argues that the peoples independence, peace at home and abroad, safety, prosperity, and liberty are dependent upon the unity of the Constitutional government and the Union of between the states it has created. He warns his fellow Americans that the most frequent and most dangerous attacks will be by people within the United States and abroad will seek to break this Union and weaken the United States, and as a result he urges all Americans to jealously guard it and look down upon anyone who seeks to abandon the Union, to separate a portion of the country from the rest, or weaken the ties that bind the states together.

10. Washington urges the people to consider themselves first Americans above all other local discriminations and to focus their effort and affection to the country above all else. He further urges the people to realize that any difference in religion, manners, habits, and political principals are small in comparison to the great common cause of liberty and independence which they have fought for and earned through common dangers, suffering, and successes.

11 - 12. Washington explains the benefits of the Union by discussing the ways he believes each region and the people and industries within that region benefit from trade and union with other regions and the resources, industries, and people within that region.

13. Washington argues that the greatest benefit of the union is the combined effort, resources, and means of its people and lands that will protect it from foreign attack, and allow them to avoid wars between neighboring nations that often happen due to rivalries, and competing relations with foreign nations. He also that the union will allow the country to avoid the need for an overgrown military which he believes is a threat to liberty and especially Republican Liberty.

14. Washington addresses people who believe that a government cannot control or meet the needs of such a large country and asks the American people to allow the country time to see if it can work instead of deciding that it cannot while not even attempting the experiment. He again warns Americans to be suspicious of the motives of anyone who says that it cannot work without proper evidence that it has failed.

15. Washington says that the greatest threat to the Union is sectionalism, or the creation of parties based upon their regional location, and people who seek to create a belief that there is a real difference in the interest and views of one region compared to another. He warns the people that men will seek to gain power by convincing them that other regions or the government do not care about them or have competing goals that go against their own but points to Pinckney's Treaty and Jay's Treaty as proof that the government and the Atlantic States in the east are looking out for their fellow Americans in the West. He points to these two treaties as victories of a united country and asks why people in the west would ever want to break with the east after their combined efforts have granted them these victories from foreign nations.

16. Washington provides his support for the new constitutional government as an improvement upon the earliest effort at a union in the Articles of Confederation and argues that although the people have a right to alter the government through amendments it is the duty of every American to obey its laws and subject themselves to its authority until such time as it is constitutionally amended by the whole of the American people.

17 - 18. Washington warns that any effort by political parties to obstruct the execution of the law, or to impede the actions of the constitutional branches are simply efforts to advance the will of the political faction above the will of the nation as decided through the mutual interests and counsel of the whole of nations. He further warns people that although these actions by political factions may answer popular demands of the people in the long run they will only allow unjust men to take control of the government from the people and destroy the things they have alliances and laws they have created to take control of the nation.

19. See above --Epignosis (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for paragraph summarizing sections 20 - 25 titled "Danger of Political Parties" on the "Outline" table[edit]

20. Restates the danger of sectionalism and political parties in general

21. Says he beliefs it is in human nature to form political parties but it is viewed by all nations as an enemy to the government and sought to be repressed.

22. Washington argues that the natural tendency of a political parties to have more power than another, and take revenge on members of other parties leads to horrible atrocities and will eventually lead to despotism as the people seek the security of an absolute ruler who then turns his attention from promoting Public Liberty and focuses on his own elevation.

23. Even without this worst case scenario coming to be there are enough bad things that parties do make them undesirable.

24. Washington warns that political parties distract the public councils and administrators from their duties, creates ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, creates animosity of one part of the nation against another, leads to riots and insurrection, and allows foreign nations and interest access to control the government and control of the will of the country based upon their own.

25. Acknowledges that parties may be beneficial in Monarchy governments and but in popularly elected governments they are largely unnecessary and should be restrained through public opinion so that it does not consume the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epignosis (talk • contribs) 08:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Major Themes[edit]

I have decided to remove this section of the page since it has a natural tendency to create bias simply in the decision making process of the creator. I believe that the sections I have added under summary of the farewell address provide the reader to see the major areas of focus in the speech, gain an understanding of how much of the speech is dedicated to these ideas, and decide for themselves the major themes of the speech. In case of dissension on this idea I have taken the formatting texts from the removed section for quick recreation. --Epignosis (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Themes Political factionalism There were three notable themes from the speech. The first theme warned about what Washington saw as a potentially harmful political factionalism in the country. He urged Americans to unite for the good of the whole country. Two political factions had developed into political parties in the early 1790s: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, and Washington himself, backed Hamilton's plan for a central bank and other strong central economic plans based on manufacturing. The Democratic-Republicans opposed the strong government inherent in the Hamiltonian plan and favored farmers as opposed to city people. Washington foresaw that this political polarization would play significantly in the new government, as these two emerging parties attempted to guide the nation and shape it to correspond with their thought.

Foreign alliances The second theme was a warning to the nation to avoid permanent foreign alliances, particularly in Europe. Both parties wanted to stay out of the wars between France and Britain. The Federalists favored stronger ties with the British, while the Republicans insisted on adhering to the Treaty of Alliance the U.S. had already signed with France in 1778.


Religion and Morality

The third theme was religion and morality, which he called "indispensable supports" of political prosperity. He called morality "a necessary spring of popular government," and stated:

Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of 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.

Status of Revisions[edit]

I have completed the summary of Washingtons farewell address and have removed the "Major Themes" section for the above stated reason. I plan to leave the outline for reference on the original document and also to review and possibly amend the opening paragraph, legacy, and citations portion of this page.

I look forward to criticism and suggestions which will make this page complete and fair. --Epignosis (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed, expanded upon and proofed all segments of this page. I am confident in the material but concerned with its grammar, readibility, punctuation, etc. and hope that someone will help bring this page up to a professional status.--Epignosis (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

I was asked to provide a peer review for this article. I'll provide comments as I work my way through the article. I'll also do some copy editing along the way.

Lead

  • I don't quite understand this sentence, "Washington had addressed the letter to, later gave it the title of a "Farewell Address" to recognize it as their first President's valedictory to his 45 years of service to the new republic." Who did Washington address the letter to? The subject of the sentence appears to be split between Washington and the press.
  • This sentence, "Exhausted years earlier due to his advanced age, years of service to his country, the duties of the presidency, and increased attacks by his political opponents, Washington declined a third term in office, and with the help of Alexander Hamilton and the original draft of his letter, revised the address to better reflect the emerging issues of the American political landscape in 1796." is a run-on sentence and should be broken up.
  • The image in the lead is enormous, is there a smaller version that doesn't dominate the page like this one does? Also it needs a caption.

Chs. 1–7

  • In the lead you cite Jefferson's motive for convincing Washington to stay is because the two-party political system "Democratic-Republican" vs. "Federalist" could tear the country apart. Here though it appears as though the two-party system is still yet to come, "Thomas Jefferson, a man who disagreed with many of the president's policies, and would later form the Democratic-Republican Party to oppose Washington's supporters in the Federalist Party..." This chronological inconsistency needs to be addressed.
  • I put a [citation needed] template in this section after the assertion that the thought of the U.S. without GW was an unthinkable prospect for most Americans. This should be cited or removed.
  • Quote, "...Washington seeks to convince the American people that his service is no longer necessary by once again, as he had in his first inaugural address, telling them that he truly believes..." from a prose standpoint I would remove the section, "by once again, as he had in his first inaugural address, telling them that he truly believes". This is superfluous information that bogs the sentence down. This of course is my opinion, which is why I didn't remove it myself. I'm only going to do minor/minimal copy edits rather than whole sentence rewrites, which is what my suggestion would require.
  • The tense is a little confusing. I understand that you are attempting to relay what Washington said, which can be tricky in a strictly past tense structure. For me (and I'm struggling with this as I write these suggestions because it is a difficult issue) I would refer to anything about Washington's writing of the address in the past tense. I would then refer to subjects within the text of the address in the present or present progressive (as if Washington is writing to Wikipedia readers if that makes sense). I've put in an example below to help you understand what I'm trying to say.
By way of example here is the first paragraph in this subsection:
"Washington begins his farewell address by telling the American people that he believes that it is in the country's best interest for him to not seek reelection in the upcoming presidential election of 1796, and reassures them that if his service as president was ever really vital to the survival of the new nation, he is positive that is no longer the case."
I would fix the tense so that it reads like this:
"Washington began (refers to the formation of the speech) his farewell address by telling the American people that he believes (a subject within the address) that it is in the country's best interest for him to not seek reelection in the upcoming presidential election of 1796. He then reassured them that if his service as president was ever really vital to the survival of the new nation, he was positive that was no longer the case."

I'm not sure if this really addresses the issue, it is a question of style and you will probably need more input to make the writing consistent should you wish to push this article to GA standards. H1nkles (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Importance of Unity, and The Danger of Sectionalism 8–15

  • For the most part this section is fine, a few prose issues but nothing worth a protracted discussion. I question though the linking of "Republican Liberty". It is a red link and I'm not really sure what you're getting at there. Is that a theory of government or a philosophy? You may want to consider unlinking it.

The Authority of The Constitution, The Threat of Political Factions, and The Danger of Constitutional Amendments Designed to Weaken The Government 16–19

The Dangers of Political Parties 20–25

  • This is a run-on sentence, "His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party, by Thomas Jefferson, to oppose Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others." Look out for using "which" twice in one sentence.
  • You link Britain to the United States. I assume you meant United Kingdom. Per WP:overlink it is best to not link countries and dates unless you are linking to a specific issue related to the country or the date in and of itself is significant. For example linking to September 11 is appropriate in an article about terrorism. I took the liberty of removing the links.
  • The final paragraph in this section is one long sentence. Consider breaking the sentence up or expanding on the subject.

The Importance of The Constitution's System of Checks and Balances, Separation of Powers, and Constitutional Amendments 26

  • I combined the two paragraphs in this section into one, as the first paragraph is one long sentence.
  • You will want to reconsider the use of personal reflections on Washington's writings as this can be considered in violation of WP:POV and/or WP:OR. My example is the following sentence, "This statement takes on added significance from a man who commanded the armies of British colonists who waged an armed rebellion against the British Government, during the American Revolution, and helped build a plan for a new government against the wishes of the acting Articles of Confederation government during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787."

Religion, Morality, and Education 27–29 This section is fine.

The Importance of Credit, and The Sparing Use of Government Borrowing 30

  • Again watch personal speculation here, "Washington makes an extended reference, possibly due to the Whiskey Tax Revolt in Pennsylvania he was led a national army to put down, on how important it is for the government to be careful in choosing the items that will be taxed..."
  • Also the writing of the above sentence is poor, "...he was led a national army to put down..." doesn't make sense and should be rewritten.

Foreign Relations, The Dangers of Permanent Foreign Alliances, and Free Trade 31–42

  • Look for multiple instances of linking the same subjects. I note that the Federalist party and the Democratic-Republican party are linked here and in previous sections of the article. Per WP:Link the links should be found once in the article and perhaps once in the lead. An exception to this would be if the article is particularly long, then subjects can be linked twice within the body of the article.
  • There are a lot of problems with the following sentence, "It is likely that Washington's own experience during the Citizen Genêt Affair, when a French diplomat traveled to America raising militias to attack Spanish lands , privateers to seize British ships, and rallies to sway American opinion in favor of an alliance with France against Washington's orders to stop his activities in the interest of American neutrality." There is no conclusion to the initial subject, which is Washington's own experience with this French citizen. What impact did this have on his opinions mentioned in this address? Also it is another example of personal speculation. H1nkles (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington's Intentions In Writing This Letter 43 - 44 This section is fine.

Defense of The Proclamation of Neutrality 45 - 49 This section is also fine.

Closing Thoughts 50–51 This section is fine.

Legacy

  • What is the Quasi-War? It is a red link, there must be some article on this subject since it involved Washington.
  • "The U.S. Senate alone would continue this tradition into modern times..." you may want to consider rewording since 1984, when the House discontinued reading the address, is considered by most historians to be "modern times". If the Senate maintains the practice of reading Washington's address to this day then state it as such. H1nkles (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comments The following are action points to help improve the article for submission to GA and further:

  • Regarding content I feel as though the bulk of the article is a summary of the address. I think it would be better served if the summary was trimmed and more information was put in about Washington's motivations for writing the address, the political climate surrounding the address, and an expansion of the legacy section. Readers can read the address to find out what it says, they check out the article to get more detail about the address and its impact on American politics and history.
  • That said, watch out for speculative statements. Anything outside of the address should be referenced.
  • References are significantly lacking. The article will need to be more thoroughly referenced especially if you trim the summary and augment other sections previously stated with third party sources.
  • References need to be formatted properly see WP:CITE for more information on this.
  • Using the farewell address as a source for itself is a violation of Wikipedia:PSTS.
  • Give the article a thorough prose review and clean up some run-on sentences and repetitive wording. Some of the prose suggestions are above but there are more that I left out for lack of time.
  • The sub-section titles are too long. Consider paraphrasing the subject of the sub-section in three to five words at most.
  • The photo in the lead is too big and needs a caption.
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of the contents of the article. It is not an introduction to the article. There is information in the lead that is not found in the body of the article. There is good information here that would help the article if it was part of the body in perhaps an introductory section.

This article is off to a good start, the images are topical and the content is important and very encyclopedic. There is some work left to be done on this article but I feel as though you are well on your way. Thank you for your contributions to articles about one of America's greatest founding fathers. I wish you well in your further endeavors. H1nkles (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In need of an editor/writer to complete this article.[edit]

As I have said before while I am confident and willing to defend my historical research on and summary of this document I am afraid my skills as a writer and editor are severely inadequate. Despite the excellent peer review I fear that any effort that I would make to try improve this article further based upon the suggestions included within it would result in only a different rendition of a poorly written and edited article. As a result I would like to ask for a user who possesses these skills to provide a final editing and wordsmithing of this article and then submit it for a final rating.

I have provided all the information I can and as a result I am going to step aside on this article, except of course if someone would like to discuss its content or the content of this message, and allow users who are more skilled in this area to make this article as professional as possible.

Just as Washington did, I would ask that you please take these final suggestions into consideration when editing and finalizing this article.

1 - I believe that all the information included within the article is important for understanding the message of Washington's letter although it may not be presented in the correct format.
2 - I believe it is important to avoid overgeneralizing this article per my previous posts have shown that this sometimes leads to confusion of the message portrayed in the document.
3 - I believe it is important to provide a summary of the entire letter, despite the fact that readers could simply reference the original, since the vocabulary and wording of the original is extensive and of an older tradition of writing that can also lead to confusion and the inclusion of bias when the text is not fully understood.
4 - I am ready to defend my summary of the article as it is written if you are unable or unwilling to do so please do not distort the summary as included in this article.

I hope you will take up the challenge and help raise this article to the "featured article" status that it deserves since it was and is to this day considered to be one of the most important documents in United States History by politicians and historians alike.

Thank you and I look forward to your questions, concerns, and contributions, --Epignosis (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 January 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Aervanath (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:NCCAPS and consistency with Barack Obama's farewell address. --Nevé–selbert 22:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 03:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It should be noted that there is also an entry for Lee's Farewell Address, which may need to be retitled Robert E. Lee's farewell address. The addresses of Washington and Lee, however, which were not delivered as speeches, could be considered titles of documents or proclamations which would thus be eligible for initial caps per MOS:CT. Official sources, such as the U.S. Senate, list "Washington's Farewell Address" with initial caps. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Washington, neutral on the others for the moment, reserving comment. At least in terms of Washington, it is the title of a document by that name, so it should be rendered in title case per our MOS and common usage. Imzadi 1979 → 12:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as WP:NCCAPS is pretty clear and IMO consistency is more important than common use in this case. Laurdecl talk 05:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, primarily because I see no reason they should be consistent – they're on several different subjects. Lee's is a letter explaining his surrender, Obama's and Eisenhower's are the last public speech they made as President, Washington's was a letter to the nation near his retirement, Lincoln's was actually his speech to Illinois on leaving to become President. I also think the arguments that Washington's and Lee's are titles of documents are strong arguments. Jenks24 (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Washington's Farewell Address. I agree with Imzadi1979 that there is a proper name at play here, for the Washington case, but the proper name does not include "George". See this ngram: [1]. Neutral leaning oppose on the others. Suggest they be treated separately case by case, since there doesnt' seem a consensus on them here.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Washington's Farewell Address. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In popular culture" ...[edit]

Can we remove this ? It's nonsense. Washington's farewell address was *not* "forgotten until the musical Hamilton came along". That's pure nonsense. I would just rip it out as childish "aren't we speshul !" crap except guaranteed, some thirteen year old will insist on putting it back and then there would be an edit war and other interesting junior high school activities 116.231.75.71 (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fact is the Address was neglected. 1) "This is the story of the most famous American speech you've never read...George Washington's Farewell Address is now almost forgotten." says John Avlon Washington's Farewell: The Founding Father’s Warning to Future Generations 2) NPR says, "https://www.npr.org/2017/01/08/.../what-we-can-learn-from-washingtons-farewell Jan 8, 2017 - "When Lin-Manuel [Miranda] brought it back for [the Broadway musical] Hamilton, it was really the first time in a long time it had gotten that kind of attention." 3) Matthew Spalding & Patrick J. Garrity argued there was in the late 20th century a "Renaissance" of interest in George Washington, "Remarkably, this Renaissance has paid relatively little attention to Washington's most famous writing. The Farewell Addresses 1796...:" A Sacred Union of Citizens: George Washington's Farewell Address (1996) p 2. Rjensen (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh b.s. Three nitwits on NPR, falling all over themselves over a lying, factually distorted piece of crap musical, spout a bunch of nonsense and suddenly it's gospel. Okay, you twats belive whatever you want, you're so [i]speshul[/i]. But it's nonsense. Mat and Pat have absolutely no factual basis for their dipsit claim. They pulled it out their shared rear and now you want to worship it. Bow down to a turd if you like, what do I care 116.231.75.71 (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove link to "farewell address" article?[edit]

User:Dilidor, I appreciate your work in cleaning up overlinking in articles like this one. Looking at your contribution history, it's clear that you are cleaning up a lot of overlinking on Wikipedia, which (as the WP Manual of Style regarding overlinking suggests) can make it difficult to sort out important links from articles less likely to be useful.

In this case, though, George Washington's Farewell Address is historic in part because subsequent U.S. presidents have felt the duty to live up to the standard set by Washington's address. The farewell address (farewell speech) article attempts to document many subsequent speeches that are held to the same standard. My May 18 edit to the article tried to provide better context for why George Washington's Farewell Address belongs in the "farewell address" family of articles. The farewell speech article has potential to be a much better article, but that becomes harder if that article is difficult to find.

Would it be acceptable to you if I repeated by May 18 edit? -- RobLa (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RobLa: Could you could elucidate on this idea within the body of the article? It sounds like something worth expanding upon. Why does GW's speech belong in that category? How does it compare with other famous farewell speeches? Etc. Then, with some form of discussion in the body, you could add a short summary of that material to the intro.
Without that sort of elucidation, however, a simple link to "farewell speeches" seems like over-linking—especially when the actual article has a different title. A list of other farewell addresses would be linked via "see also". —Dilidor (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilidor:, a made a beginning edit or two to both this article and to the farewell speech article that make the kind end-goal you envision feasible. I believe most of the prose you suggest actually belongs in the farewell speech article (e.g. comparisons of this address to other U.S. presidential farewell addresses). The citation I added to both articles further cites a Gleaves Whitney book titled "American Presidents: Farewell Addresses to the Nation, 1796-2001" which probably contains ample material for an industrious Wikipedian to draw from. -- RobLa (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unity and sectionalism[edit]

I have improved the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section of the summary. Please do reply here if you have anything to contribute to the improved version. The old version is clearly inaccurate after a cursory reading of the corresponding section of the actual address. Ecirpcire (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of "Farewell Address"[edit]

I feel the article should be retitled George Washington's farewell address since the work was only later referred to as the "Farewell Address". The current capitalization seems to only be coming from the titles of web pages about the text, not from RS that say that's the proper way to display it. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous discussion at § Requested move 30 January 2017. wbm1058 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What was the final conclusion of that discussion? It simply says "no consensus," which suggests to me that the question can be reopened. Am I missing anything? —Dilidor (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. The previous arguments should simply be taken into account when considering this question. The link was just an "FYI". wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closer comparison would be to the Gettysburg Address, rather than to other farewell addresses. This is Washington's speech at the end of his career, just as the other is Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg. The article on Gettysburg capitalizes both, so my view is that we leave this article as is. —Dilidor (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the sources call it just "Farewell Address". In my view, it makes sense to capitalize when displayed that way, but when called "George Washington's farewell address", there's a qualifier which takes away the proper-noun status. It's also rarely referred to this way anywhere but the article title. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address&oldid=1218286292"