While history has either been overly kind of the good General, or the spirit of revisionism has caught up to him - and historians are striping away the layers of patriotism accumulated over the years to look at the man in a very different light.
Regardless of the reader’s view, let look at some excerpts from his farewell address. Let’s consider the words of the man, and forget the messenger for a moment.
On Political Parties
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
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.
On Abuse of Power
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.The Importance of Constitutional Principles Versus “Emergencies”
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.Don’t Go into Debt, Peace Brings Prosperity
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear.Diplomacy Through Trade, Avoid Multi-National Alliances and Government
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
Are you sure that was Georg Washington and not Ron Paul?
George, that is.
I can tell it’s not Ron Paul because he didn’t talk about the gold standard.
Washington was clearly a historian, or at least the guy that wrote his speeches was a historian. We have completely forgot the examples throughout history of republics turning into autocracies. They happen in the exact way that Washington describes.
“I can tell it’s not Ron Paul because he didn’t talk about the gold standard.”
And he probably also didn’t sound like he was constantly whining.
That is a valid criticism of Ron Paul - he almost always sounds like a grumpy old man.
He and McCain are not good speakers. McCain looks like Popeye up there at the podium, waving his short little arms around in a poor attempt to copy Bush or something.
Huckabee definitely wins at public speaking, with Obama at #2.
Huckabee a better public speaker then Obama? He’s decent but I think that Obama’s talent at giving speeches is unsurpassed in the race at the moment, and I don’t think anyone over the last few years have come close to him in this area as well. It was his speech at the DNC during the last election that really catapulted him to the level he’s now at.
I don’t know about the guys policies, but he has talent for sure.
Huckabee is best at off-the-cuff speaking, Obama best at planned speeches. Huckabee is really good at impromptu responses.
Obama is the best presidential public speaker since Bill Clinton. Huckabee does fairly well off the cuff, but I think he sticks his foot in his mouth quite a bit.
Speaking of Obama… it’s pretty easy when you’re plagiarizing another’s speech.
http://bigheaddc.com/2008/02/17/obama-caught-plagiarizing-2006-deval-patrick-speech/
Romney is also a pretty decent speaker (slick appearance aside).
“Romney is also a pretty decent speaker (slick appearance aside).”
I guess I can see where you’re coming from, but I guess I cannot distinguish his speaking from the slick appearance. I have to agree with the media that he came off as “inauthentic”. I don’t know if you can be a good speaker while giving people that impression.
A lot of that is just how he looks… greased back hair, CEO appearance. His words conveyed an authenticity, but his appearance did not.
Why does Darius always have to weigh in on the discussions I have with Googlebot?
I had the opposite impression of Romney. He looked great until he opened his mouth. The CEO appearance is a positive.
Don’t ask me, my multiple personalities keep logging in.
Jew, in today’s anti-corporate world, a CEO appearance is a negative to many people. I agree with you, the CEO appearance is a positive to me. But the media has done a good job of painting CEOs like they all work for Enron. I thought Romney, by and large, had good things to say, and said them well. His “religion” speech was particularly good.
When I read this article I thought, “How would Washington respond to watching a modern presidential debate?” Of course, this is all speculation. But I envision him taking almost everyone to task for one thing or another. Much of the population would agree until he expresses his reservations about a woman and a “Negro” running for the nation’s highest office. Then everyone sort of decides they don’t like George Washington so much after all, and Ron Paul has to distance himself from Washington’s comments. Just my imagination running wild.