3 ms·

Washington was mad about political parties because his federalist-aligned coalition was collapsing. He resigned because of his declining health and because it w

Washington was mad about political parties because his federalist-aligned coalition was collapsing. He resigned because of his declining health and because it was no longer obvious he could win if be ran again, and he feared the resulting reputational damage. There was extreme political contention at the time and Washington’s administration was becoming increasingly controversial. This very deeply bothered him, because he didn’t like opposition. In the words of Thomas Paine: > Being now once more abroad in the world I began to find that I was not the only one who had conceived an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Washington. It was evident that his character was on the decline as well among Americans as among foreigners of different nations. From being the chief of a government, he had made himself the chief of a party; and his integrity was questioned, for his politics had a doubtful appearance. This culminated in his federalist allies later criminalizing free speech and deporting dissidents under the Alien and Sedition Acts. The farewell address was an explicitly political speech and you should read it in its historical context. You wouldn’t read Bush, Obama, or Trump speeches and take them at face value. Don’t read past ones at face value.

ctrlp 2y ago
[flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  Please don't do this. I know it's frustrating, but it's against the site guidelines (more than one, actually) and only makes the threads worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ctrlp 2y ago
    Yes, ok, sorry dang. I promise to only post thoughtful comments that add value with the absolute minimum sprinkling of sarcasm. I do believe I'm trying to contribute to a diversity of opinion on HN and make arguments that others might not have encountered before, but I see that I've violated some of the rules. I've read and committed the guidelines to memory now. Can you please unthrottle me? It's hard to engage in substantive back-and-forth if I can't post more than a couple of times a day.
    - dang 2y ago
      Ok, done!
      - ctrlp 2y ago
        Thank you!
- Amezarak 2y ago
  I don't mind (and dang, I hope you don't mind me responding to this post.) I think many people tend to reflexively downvote things that seem contrarian or contradict what they know, and that it's probably generally a good thing. Lies My Teacher Told Me gets into some of the issues with the way American history is taught, and even though we recognize that the cherry tree story is a fable now, people are generally taught a mythologized view of Washington and the other founders in school, and that's partly the basis for our civic religion. So when you come across a comment like I wrote, I think it's easy to dismiss it. And that's by design! Even back then, people knew they were consciously creating a myth surrounding Washington and other figures. Take this letter from Benjamin Rush to John Adams: > The venerable Charles Thompson now above 80 years of Age, now and then calls to see me. I once suggested to him to write secret Memoirs of the American Revolution. “No—No said he I will not.—I could not tell the truth without giving great offence. Let the World admire our patriots and heroes. Their supposed talents and Virtues (where they were <[. . .])> so) <will> by commanding invitation will serve the Cause of patriotism, and of Our Country.” I concur in this Sentiment, and therefore I earnestly request that you will destroy this letter [largely about Washington's failings] as soon as you read it. I do not even wish it to be known that General W: was deficient in that Mark of true Greatness which so preeminently characterized Julius Cæsar, Henry the 4th: of France, and Frederick the 2nd: of Prussia,—the talent to forgive. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5755 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5755 I think this is true of a lot of history, really - anything "important" we've assumed a mythologized view of, mediated by schools and Hollywood. Myth is more powerful than reality, so I think until you bury yourself in primary and contemporary sources, it can come across as almost conspiratorial. And of course, I am not saying that Rush, or the antifederalists, were correct in all their criticisms or all they said: only that Washington's comments must be understood contextually, and that's almost always missing when people refer to the Farewell Address, or at best they have a very simplified view of the situation that preserves the mythologization of Washington.
jaybrendansmith 2y ago
That's an interesting take. Washington did not support the federalists in all things, in fact he likely prevented most of their extremist actions while he was in power. The citizen Genet affair had concerned him greatly, because Jefferson had invited the French in against the wishes of the state department. Sort of like Trump cozying up to dictators like Putin now, he worried about people putting faction over country, or putting themselves over the constitution. Your disapproval of Washington does explain a lot to me about how we've gotten to our current point, and tells me that he was not wrong to worry.
- Amezarak 2y ago
  It was a coalition and Washington was certainly one of them. The Jay treaty was a defining moment in party identification. If you read the letters I linked, I think you’ll find that my comment was fairly apropos - as in the Rush letter, you’re leveraging an idea of Washington they deliberately falsified. And of course a lot of the controversy was over the Constitution! (see the Paine letter I linked in the thread). Washington was a nakedly political animal and anyone that disagreed with him got labeled a factionalist, and anti federalist, etc. complaining about political parties was just his dressed up language for complaining about dissent.
  - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
    Yes, politics was a blood sport back then for sure. Both sides absolutely hated each other, the Federalists were trying to rebuild the British federalist system (sneak peek: they were proven correct by history) and the Democratic-Republicans wanted to maintain the southern slave economy. Washington was attempting to maintain the coalition in any way possible ... a hoop for 13 staves. He recognized how Adams and Hamilton were just as bad as Jefferson and Madison, but he sided with them because he recognized they were ultimately correct. (And have been proven by 250 years of history to have been correct. Without federalism we have no modern banking, we have no strong federal government. We have no industrial economy. Fun fact, without it, we lose to the Axis powers! Why we continue to debate this is completely beyond me.) Yes, Washington was sometimes imperfect, because he had to make tough choices, like keeping us out of the French revolution. And remember that ultimately Hamilton supported Jefferson over Aaron Burr, that villain.

ctrlp 2y ago

[flagged]

dang 2y ago
Please don't do this. I know it's frustrating, but it's against the site guidelines (more than one, actually) and only makes the threads worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ctrlp 2y ago
  Yes, ok, sorry dang. I promise to only post thoughtful comments that add value with the absolute minimum sprinkling of sarcasm. I do believe I'm trying to contribute to a diversity of opinion on HN and make arguments that others might not have encountered before, but I see that I've violated some of the rules. I've read and committed the guidelines to memory now. Can you please unthrottle me? It's hard to engage in substantive back-and-forth if I can't post more than a couple of times a day.
  - dang 2y ago
    Ok, done!
    - ctrlp 2y ago
      Thank you!
Amezarak 2y ago
I don't mind (and dang, I hope you don't mind me responding to this post.) I think many people tend to reflexively downvote things that seem contrarian or contradict what they know, and that it's probably generally a good thing. Lies My Teacher Told Me gets into some of the issues with the way American history is taught, and even though we recognize that the cherry tree story is a fable now, people are generally taught a mythologized view of Washington and the other founders in school, and that's partly the basis for our civic religion. So when you come across a comment like I wrote, I think it's easy to dismiss it. And that's by design! Even back then, people knew they were consciously creating a myth surrounding Washington and other figures. Take this letter from Benjamin Rush to John Adams: > The venerable Charles Thompson now above 80 years of Age, now and then calls to see me. I once suggested to him to write secret Memoirs of the American Revolution. “No—No said he I will not.—I could not tell the truth without giving great offence. Let the World admire our patriots and heroes. Their supposed talents and Virtues (where they were <[. . .])> so) <will> by commanding invitation will serve the Cause of patriotism, and of Our Country.” I concur in this Sentiment, and therefore I earnestly request that you will destroy this letter [largely about Washington's failings] as soon as you read it. I do not even wish it to be known that General W: was deficient in that Mark of true Greatness which so preeminently characterized Julius Cæsar, Henry the 4th: of France, and Frederick the 2nd: of Prussia,—the talent to forgive. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5755 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5755 I think this is true of a lot of history, really - anything "important" we've assumed a mythologized view of, mediated by schools and Hollywood. Myth is more powerful than reality, so I think until you bury yourself in primary and contemporary sources, it can come across as almost conspiratorial. And of course, I am not saying that Rush, or the antifederalists, were correct in all their criticisms or all they said: only that Washington's comments must be understood contextually, and that's almost always missing when people refer to the Farewell Address, or at best they have a very simplified view of the situation that preserves the mythologization of Washington.

jaybrendansmith 2y ago

That's an interesting take. Washington did not support the federalists in all things, in fact he likely prevented most of their extremist actions while he was in power. The citizen Genet affair had concerned him greatly, because Jefferson had invited the French in against the wishes of the state department. Sort of like Trump cozying up to dictators like Putin now, he worried about people putting faction over country, or putting themselves over the constitution. Your disapproval of Washington does explain a lot to me about how we've gotten to our current point, and tells me that he was not wrong to worry.

Amezarak 2y ago
It was a coalition and Washington was certainly one of them. The Jay treaty was a defining moment in party identification. If you read the letters I linked, I think you’ll find that my comment was fairly apropos - as in the Rush letter, you’re leveraging an idea of Washington they deliberately falsified. And of course a lot of the controversy was over the Constitution! (see the Paine letter I linked in the thread). Washington was a nakedly political animal and anyone that disagreed with him got labeled a factionalist, and anti federalist, etc. complaining about political parties was just his dressed up language for complaining about dissent.
- jaybrendansmith 2y ago
  Yes, politics was a blood sport back then for sure. Both sides absolutely hated each other, the Federalists were trying to rebuild the British federalist system (sneak peek: they were proven correct by history) and the Democratic-Republicans wanted to maintain the southern slave economy. Washington was attempting to maintain the coalition in any way possible ... a hoop for 13 staves. He recognized how Adams and Hamilton were just as bad as Jefferson and Madison, but he sided with them because he recognized they were ultimately correct. (And have been proven by 250 years of history to have been correct. Without federalism we have no modern banking, we have no strong federal government. We have no industrial economy. Fun fact, without it, we lose to the Axis powers! Why we continue to debate this is completely beyond me.) Yes, Washington was sometimes imperfect, because he had to make tough choices, like keeping us out of the French revolution. And remember that ultimately Hamilton supported Jefferson over Aaron Burr, that villain.