Posted on 05/14/2006 11:36:36 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
George Washington Didn’t Say That
Some of you who follow American History might have heard at one time or another that George Washington warned his countrymen of “entangling foreign alliances” in his farewell address given as he prepared to retire from his second presidential term. You may have heard that he issued a neo-isolationist concept about how the USA should treat its foreign policy ideas.
Here is a relevant section of Washington’s farewell address:
“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 connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”Unfortunately, too many view Washington’s warning of foreign entanglements incorrectly. Though it is a very common misconception, Washington was absolutely not saying we should never have anything to do with other nations or that we should forever steer clear of “foreign entanglements”. Washington was not proposing an isolationist policy.
Instead, Washington was worried about the pervasive split between Americans backing England and those standing up for France that had appeared in the US during Washington’s last term in office. This split was causing heavy fractionalization on the American political scene, and faction was one of the chief bugaboos in American political philosophy at the time. It should be remembered that during Washington’s terms the Party system had yet to be created and it was hoped by the Founders that a political system free of Parties could be sustained as a permanent American convention.
Washington meant only to steer clear of European alliances and entanglements only for as long as it took to get the USA consolidated and strong and to strengthen the Federal Union in the face of superior European power.
In a letter to Gouverneur Morris on Dec. 22, 1795, Washington mentioned how he envisioned that the USA would be strong enough to hold its own about 20 years after the country’s birth, that, until that time, he wanted his country to be left alone and clear of European meddling so that the USA’s position would be unassailable.
So, while much of the advice about foreign policy is sound, Washington’s warning was one of the immediate future not one of a permanent nature.
It should also be remembered that the US was fully involved in trade negotiations with every European nation at the time Washington issued his farewell address, so even as he was warning about foreign entanglements, the country was already so entangled.
A clear and concise monograph on this subject can be seen in the book, “To the Farewell Address”, by Felix Gilbert. (1961 Princeton Press)
Lastly, just on a point of clarification, the Farewell Address was initially drafted by Madison, with revisions by both Washington and Hamilton.
-By Warner Todd Huston
Or let terrorists continue to blow up our buildings and slaughter Americans here and the world over. I guess that isn't much of an extraordinary emergency either.
So what? You make a point that is immaterial to anything in the original post. No one said who wrote how much. But Madison wrote the first draft, Washington didn't like all of it and asked hamilton to do another. Washington made alter ations. So, all three had something to do with it.
See post 22. YES, Madison wrote the first draft.
No, the first draft was NOT done by Hamilton. Madison wrote Washington's first draft. Hamilton materially changed it, though.
Ron Paul is an isolationist. What would you EXPECT him to say?
How nice of you to ignore the context of the times the address was written.
Next time, try taking into account the fuller context of history instead of taking things out of context.
No kidding. Isolationists drive me nuts. It's so absurd.
Yeah in a time where it takes a whole 7 hours to hop on a plane from England or Europe to get here (something the founders couldn't have foreseen in their time), acting like the world around us isn't going to do us harm because we aren't doing anything to them is simply stupid/naive/nearsighted.
And like a classic liberal, in his statement there he makes himself sound like a heroic martyr-victim, who is being "persecuted" for his "out of the mainstream" beliefs. What a joke. People always think that being persecuted and being a martyr suddenly makes them righteous underdogs and and their beliefs correct...so they strive for victimhood as much as possible. And often they have to exaggerate, lie, stretch the truth, and make it SOUND like they are underdog martyrs.
Michael Moore does a similar thing. It's all about the image.
Even though they call themselves "true" conservatives, isolationism is a classic left-wing ideal and stems from a socialist mindset.
That was one of Marx's teachings that the Soviet Union didn't adhere to.
That is true.. When Washington left the office, we had no navy or an effective army.. Now we are the world's superpower. In order to maintain that status, we have to go war overseas and enter in alliances. Times change...
Washington's Farewell Address was never delivered by him. It appeared first by his own arrangement in a newspaper at Philadelphia, then the seat of the national government. Designed in part to remove him from consideration for a third term as President of the United States, the address as published was similar to one he had prepared at the end of his first term, in 1792, when he had contemplated retiring from office. In July 1796, he sent a copy of this earlier address to Alexander Hamilton, requesting him to write a new one.
Hamilton, who until the year before had been secretary of the treasury and the chief architect of Washington's administration, did as he was asked, but the result, again reworked by Washington, still reflects the ideas of the retiring President. It was printed in the American Daily Advertiser, September 19, 1796.
Sorry, but that is just plain wrong... to a degree. Hamilton wrote the one that was given (with Washington's changes), but Washington asked Madison to write the very first one. Very little of what Madison wrote ended up in the end piece, though. Still, Madison was asked to write the first one.
The key words are commercial relations. He was saying that our commerce (trade) between the United States and foreign countries should not be based on political considerations that could come back to bite us at a later date or that could introduce corruption, graft and payoffs into our economic system. He well knew that there were plenty of corrupt politicians who would be more than willing to use their positions to make a buck on selling influence and legislative deals in the commercial arena. Too bad that it persists to this day.
[Washington attempted to retire after one term in 1792. With James Madison he even drafted a farewell "Valedictory Address." Instead of delivering it, however, he was persuaded to remain in office a second term. By 1796 Washington insisted upon retiring from public life. He dusted off the Valedictory and sent the draft to Alexander Hamilton to rewrite in a "plain stile." Although historians have debated if it was Madison, Hamilton, or Washington who authored the Farewell Address, the current consensus is that it was a true collaboration. Although the words are Hamilton's, the ideas and the sentiment are all Washington's.
In the Address Washington articulates once more his political philosophy that the continuation of the American experiment depends upon a united virtuous, educated citizenry and a strong central government to hold disparate groups together. To Washington, the rise of partisan politics threatened national unity. Permanent foreign alliances were dangerous because they constricted American interests and dampened independence. Above all, Washington offered himself to the American people as the model of the classically conservative republican: deferential, virtuous, selfless, and responsible to the rule of law as expressed by the Constitution. Washington never delivered his Farewell Address publicly, rather it was circulated in newspapers printed first in the Philadelphia's American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796.]
Washington was no isolationist. In fact, although he preferred not to label himself with political parties, he was in fact a Federalist. Neither the Federalists nor the early Republicans were isolationists; the key issue at the time was which side the U.S. should be more in favor of (the French and the British had long been at war). Washington and the rest of the Federalists thought it was within the best interest of the country to be more supportive of Britain, while the Republicans favored the French.
Washington more than likely did not want this issue to divide the country, because he saw it as partisan politics.
If things are different today, it is because we have failed to follow the path laid down by men like Washington.
If we minded our own business during WWI, Hitler and WWII wouldn't have happened.
How about the Cold War? Maybe we should have let communism take over the whole rest of the world? Would that be the good conduct towards nations to which we are enjoined by Religion and Morality which Washington spoke of?
Communism has probably done more damage to commuist countries than commuist countries ever would have done to us.
It's also possible that the Russian Revolution might not have survived had we not interfered in WWI.
We entered just about the time all antagonists were willing to talk peace, and we thereby prolonged the war--and so continued the discontent and chaos in Russia and Europe.
Certainly, had the European nations not been entangled in their own alliances to begin with, WWI would not have happened and communism would not have taken over Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.