The first farewell address to the nation in US history was made by the country’s first elected president, George Washington. In the fall of 1796, a letter of 32 handwritten pages was published in the Philadelphia Daily Advertiser. This address, which became Washington’s real political testament, is still considered one of the most important documents in American history. Washington’s address contained many ideas that for more than two hundred years continue to have a direct impact on US foreign and domestic policy, as well as on the process of formation of the American nation. The main thing that Washington did was that he refused to hold the presidency for more than two terms, although he had the right to do so: the amendment to the US Constitution that legalized this rule was adopted only in 1947.
Analyzing Washington’s farewell speech, it should be noted that the president not only said goodbye, but also gave instructions to the entire nation. He considered the most important element of the success of the state and society to be the preservation and promotion of peaceful coexistence with all forces. Such forces include not only neighboring states, but also different races and religions. Washington himself repeatedly refers to God’s laws, believing that they condemn any discord or disrespect (Sands, 2019). Just as in the Bible there is a ban on the creation of an idol, so the president did not advise becoming attached to any strong players in the political arena; instead, he insists on America’s independent incremental development.
However, Washington’s position on racial conflicts and divisions is highly ambiguous. On the one hand, the president proposes a respectful and peaceful coexistence of all representatives of the races to create a single full-fledged society. On the other hand, the founding father did not vehemently oppose slavery, which contradicts his stance in farewell (Hayes, 2020). This does not mean that Washington is acting hypocritically or having double standards, because it is worth considering the context of the times. However, there is a point of view in which racial coexistence should not be attributed to the values of the president.
It is also worth noting that Washington has flagged potential red flags for the state, as well as issued several warnings to the nation. Washington warned that the most serious threat to American democracy came from internal disunity rather than outside interference (Sands, 2019). He foresaw the possibility of foreign influence on the American political system and the coming to power of a president who, neglecting national interests, would become the personification of the threat of despotism. He pleaded with the Almighty to ease the impact of presidential mistakes and expressed the hope that America would forgive him (Sands, 2019). Washington has set a standard for its moral wear and tear, fearing that its self-importance could become a threat to democracy.
Washington’s most far-reaching warnings concerned the threat of secession. In his opinion, if one group begins to dominate the other, then this can lead to a more formed and permanent despotism. This explains the point of view that it was defying Washington’s warnings that Donald Trump became president (Sands, 2019). First, such thoughts are common among Trump’s opponents, which is argued by the president’s hostile attitude towards Mexicans. The rise of the despot will be fueled by turmoil and suffering which will eventually push the citizens to seek security in the form of absolute power of one person (Sands, 2019). Thus, Washington most of all warned the nation against possible mistakes leading to the modification or destruction of the democratic system of the state.
Based on the foregoing, Washington is not only a president who said goodbye to the nation for the first time before leaving, but also a kind of visionary. He repeatedly reminds society of the importance and uniqueness of democracy, the essence of which is to ensure a better quality of life. At the same time, the president warns citizens about potential mistakes that could lead to radical negative changes. Finally, modern history shows that some of Washington’s words were prescient.