5 ms·

Washington's farewell address was a political speech. He was unequivocally a federalist, and his speech was aimed at suppressing anti-federalism. He basically b

Washington's farewell address was a political speech. He was unequivocally a federalist, and his speech was aimed at suppressing anti-federalism. He basically believed there should be only one party - his and Hamilton/Adams' party. That's why very soon afterwards federalists in Congress passed laws allowing the President to imprison people for reporting truthfully what was happening in Congress (out of the fear it would generate outrage in the populace) and even for mere criticism of the President. For much of his tenure as Vice President under Adams, Jefferson lived in fear of his safety and was even afraid to speak out in private letters, as he believed federalists were reading his mail looking for something to ruin him with. Early America was incredibly factious, with rebellions and armed private militias and mobs perpetrating violence (and threats of violence) on their political opponents. Politics hasn't changed much over time. Read Washington's speeches like you would Trump's or Obama's.

chillacy 10y ago
That's an interesting take, that's the first time I've heard of that interpretation. Is that the view of any specific authors? I feel like Washington is extremely venerated, which makes me a bit suspicious. It's not quite a cult of personality like Stalin but nobody's perfect. A accounts seem to imply that Washington was a reluctant leader who didn't want to get involved in politics: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-George-Washington-refuse-a-third-term-as-President https://www.quora.com/Why-did-George-Washington-refuse-a-thi...
- Amezarak 10y ago
  The letters of most of the major figures of the time are publicly available, as are the newspapers of the era via Google Books and other free, online resources. I highly recommend reading as much as you can. That's a lot of reading, so if you want a shortcut, I'd recommend the book "American Aurora." It is essentially a selection of newspaper articles, Federalist and Democratic-Republican both, and letters, concatenated to form a narrative. You should, however, keep in mind that it is intentionally slanted towards the Democratic-Republicans. > I feel like Washington is extremely venerated, which makes me a bit suspicious. It's not quite a cult of personality like Stalin but nobody's perfect. The cult of personality around Washington was quite deliberately engineered and some of his contemporaries - some even nominally his friends - privately lamented that someone (in their eyes) so awful would be, for all ages, venerated as a great man and a hero, but they regarded it as necessary that the nasty infancy of the country would be glossed into something more noble. (I do think his contemporaries judged him too harshly, but things always look different centuries later.)

chillacy 10y ago

That's an interesting take, that's the first time I've heard of that interpretation. Is that the view of any specific authors? I feel like Washington is extremely venerated, which makes me a bit suspicious. It's not quite a cult of personality like Stalin but nobody's perfect. A accounts seem to imply that Washington was a reluctant leader who didn't want to get involved in politics: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-George-Washington-refuse-a-third-term-as-President https://www.quora.com/Why-did-George-Washington-refuse-a-thi...

Amezarak 10y ago
The letters of most of the major figures of the time are publicly available, as are the newspapers of the era via Google Books and other free, online resources. I highly recommend reading as much as you can. That's a lot of reading, so if you want a shortcut, I'd recommend the book "American Aurora." It is essentially a selection of newspaper articles, Federalist and Democratic-Republican both, and letters, concatenated to form a narrative. You should, however, keep in mind that it is intentionally slanted towards the Democratic-Republicans. > I feel like Washington is extremely venerated, which makes me a bit suspicious. It's not quite a cult of personality like Stalin but nobody's perfect. The cult of personality around Washington was quite deliberately engineered and some of his contemporaries - some even nominally his friends - privately lamented that someone (in their eyes) so awful would be, for all ages, venerated as a great man and a hero, but they regarded it as necessary that the nasty infancy of the country would be glossed into something more noble. (I do think his contemporaries judged him too harshly, but things always look different centuries later.)