Talk:George Washington's Farewell Address

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] plagiarism

The last paragraph of this article is a complete rip-off from the State Departments comments (click the link to Washington's Farewell Address at the US State Department - also at the bottom of the page - to see for yourself). Isn't this plagiarism? (This unsigned comment was added by 63.224.58.185 on 23 January 2005)

This is the version that was in the article on 23 January, 2005:
The Address quickly entered the political mentality of the United States. It was read annually in Congress for decades; it was printed in children's primers, engraved on watches and woven into tapestries. Many Americans, especially in subsequent generations, accepted Washington's advice as gospel, and any debate between neutrality and involvement in foreign issues would invoke the Address as dispositive of all questions. Not until 1949, in fact, would the United States again sign a treaty of alliance with a foreign nation.
This is the version from the State Department article:
The Address quickly entered the realm of revealed truth. It was for decades read annually in Congress; it was printed in children's primers, engraved on watches and woven into tapestries. Many Americans, especially in subsequent generations, accepted Washington's advice as gospel, and in any debate between neutrality and involvement in foreign issues would invoke the message as dispositive of all questions. Not until 1949, in fact, would the United States again sign a treaty of alliance with a foreign nation.
It appears that 63.224.58.185 was right, that the paragraph in question was largely taken from the State Department's article. I don't know whether that article was copyrighted, so I don't know whether there was a copyright issue. However, the next day TheGrza rewrote the paragraph in question. So I think this issue is moot. NCdave 07:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word confusion?

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

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

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

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))

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)
Hearing no objection, I've made these changes. NCdave 12:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Another important theme

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)

[edit] full text

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)

Check Wikisource. MavrikGandalf 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. NCdave 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] military alliances

The article says, "Not until 1949, with the signing of the treaty that established NATO, did the United States again enter into a military alliance."

Is that a joke? Do WWI and WWII not count? NCdave 05:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

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

[edit] Outline

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

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

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

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)


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

  • 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)
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)
I went ahead and added the outline. NCdave 23:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
I went ahead and restored the outline, and the legacy section fix. NCdave (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Republican

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)

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)

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

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)